Z-Car weight/ITS

[irondragon]

To WIMC:
Who ever made it possible to have the competition weight of a Datsun 280Z drop from 2750+\- to 2505??
Would this person/group please show up in my shop and explain how I can excise this much weight from the car without destroying the structural integrity. And then be willing to drive the car.
Or, would this person/group like to address the idea that this weight readjustment was nothing more than pandering to the owners of younger ITS cars who did not want to have their power restricted.
If I am wrong in my analysis of what has happened, then tell me.
Let's have a bit of intellectual honesty here. Who did this??
Bill Miskoe - Iron Dragon Racing - Datsun 280Z - ITS Class winner at Nelson Ledges 12 Hour 2006

[JeffYoung]

That's a rather confrontational post given that the weight change was designed to help you.

The "who" who did this is via an ITAC recommendation to the CRB if I understand it correctly. They ran the Z cars through the new process, came up with a weight based on expected power output and some subjective adders/deductions.

You got a significant break, and even if it is not totally acheivable, I'm trying to see why you should be upset about this? The only car that fell outside the performance parameters (in S) of the ITAC's process was the BMW 325, and it got hit with an SIR instead of weight. So, I'm not sure which of the younger cars benefited from the weight change (reduction) to your car?

[Greg Amy]

-- reply deleted --

[zracre]

I would be more than happy to have an unachievable low weight thrown at my car...It may take some cage restructuring but it could be done...the 280 is a solid car and any weight you can get out will only make your brakes happier.

[mom'sZ]

now I have heard it all

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill, get with Matt. He knows the answers.

[Joe Harlan]

280Z: 1975-1978
Source: Nissan Motors

By the mid-70's, emissions regulations became stricter and it took increasingly complex technology to meet them. As a result, Nissan chose to boost the Z's engine displacement and add a version of Bosch's L-Jetronic fuel injection, creating the 1975 280Z. The suspension was also upgraded to match the increased power. Produced for four years, the 280Z added a five-speed overdrive transmission in 1977 and in 1978, a special edition Black Pearl was offered, featuring red and silver accent stripes, rear window louvers and dual racing mirrors.Engine
Valve Gear Single Overhead Cam
Type 6 - cylinder inline
Horsepower 149bhp @ 5,600 rpm
Torque 163lb ft @ 4,400 rpm
Fuel System Electric Fuel Pump, Bosch L-Jetronic fuel injection
DriveTrain
Transmission 5-speed manual or 4-speed manual
Chassis Curb weight 2,800 lbs.
Dimensions
Wheelbase 102.6 in. (2+2)
Length 173.2 in. (two-seater) [/b]

I have to believe it is possible to get dam close I know the bumpers are a big issue. R 180 and a 4 speed would help 280 Z struts are a lot heavier than the 240z units The Hatchs on the 240 are the same but are lighter. Early glass is lighter also.

[irondragon]

Tnx to all for your replies.
The weight reduction for Z-cars may have been intended to help me, but as the new weight is unachievable it does not. Perhaps I should have been delighted by the intention but I am not.
I believe that it was done in an attempt to keep all cars in the class at about the same power to weight ratio.
Newer cars with higher p/w ratios have arrived and it seems ITAC wanted to keep them in ITS without restricting their power. Accordingly, some cars had their weights lowered.
Good enough if it could be accomplished, but I've been around long enough in the metal fabricating business to know that weight doesn't just go away because someone writes a new number in a box.
My original post asked the people responsible to show me how I could remove 250 pds from the car and maintain its structural integrity. None of the replies have provided an answer, even though some express dismay that I would object to what has been done.
Until someone actually proves that it can be done I think the process is flawed.
Why not deal with the p/w ratio problem differently: either restrict power ( which I don't favour as it is hard to monitor) or, more realistically, ballast up the more powerful cars which is not hard to do or to monitor.
Why is the p/w ratio issue not being dealt with in this manner??
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe Iron Dragon Racing

[JeffYoung]

Bill, that's better.

The fact is that it is impossible to get teh pw/wt ratio perfect for all cars in the class. I think the target is in the 15:1 range, and the ITAC did a great job in my view in getting the 944s, the 325 (now restricted), the 240z and the RX7 balanced at that point.

There are some cars that 15:1 just won't work completely for because the weight just isn't possible or the power just isn't there (see 944 8v discussion), and unfortunately that is where the no guarantee of competiveness comes in. I'm somewhat in that boat myself.

I bet you can get 100 lbs off the 280z and with the power it makes, you should be very competitive with the other makes in S. The big problem was the unrestricted 325. While I would have preferred it got weight, the SIR and now the impending move of most of these cars to ITR should have fixed this.

[lateapex911]

Tnx to all for your replies.
The weight reduction for Z-cars may have been intended to help me, but as the new weight is unachievable it does not. Perhaps I should have been delighted by the intention but I am not.
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe Iron Dragon Racing [/b]

What have you done in an attempt to acheive the lowest possble weight? More importantly, how close have you come?

I find your comments disengenious, because it's stated as an absolute....if you can't make minimum, it doesn't help....but if you can make less than the old minimum, it has to help.

There's gotta be a middle ground, but you're not appreciating that.

Oh, and "Pandering"?? Please.......read my sig....my car is a thousand times more popular than yours and buckets of guys say the new weight is unacheivable, and, even if it were, it wouldn't be nearly enough...I have the original poster child for what your'e getting at...so don't say that I "don't get it", and am pandering.

[kthomas]

2430# for a 240Z, 2505 for a 280Z, that'd be a delta of 75 lbs. I don't think there's 75 lbs more metal in a 280Z tub, having cut up both 240Z's and 280Z's and actually having welded 1/2 of one to 1/2 of the other. It'd be close, but I think with the right cage design and some work it can be done (like are you using a factory windshield or aftermarket? Some aftermarket ones weigh as much as 11 lbs less. Oops, you didn't hear that from me).

Personally, I always hired little drivers. :eclipsee_steering:

[Joe Harlan]

K, I know the struts are heavier in a 280 and the 75 lbs is likely the bumpers. The deck lid(hatch) can be about 8 lbs different between an early 240 and late 240 but I am not sure how it compares for the 280...Cage is a good question and removal of ALL the extra sound uncoat is a must.

[JeffYoung]

K, Joe, are the 240z/260z/early 280z tubs essentially the same?

[Joe Harlan]

K, Joe, are the 240z/260z/early 280z tubs essentially the same?
[/b]

the 69/70 tub is the lightest includind suspension bits. the mid 70 to late 72 was a little heavier than the early cars mostly due to heavier parts used in the suspension, the late 72 early 73 cars have better metal in the rear suspension areas that added weight. I have never had an issue getting a late car down to the current weight for ITS with a proper cage. The early 260 I am sure is the same at the latest 240. I think I stll have all the supp/addons to the factory books in my shop.

Joe

Edit, I did forget the suspension in the 280 is heavier than the 240. I am betting a person could save about 35 to 40 labs running the early strut housings.

[irondragon]

240-260-280Z tubs are similar.
However the 280's have federally mandated bumpers which are considerably heavier, along with some framing reinforcements to support them.
This is weight that can't be taken out. Original bumpers are required in ITs and the frame elements are just too much built-in to be removed.
Bill

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill sent me this is a private e-mail as well so I will answer here.

Bill, you ask for specifics on hwo to get your car down to weight. Without any of us seeing it at a shop, I am not sure how you can expect a real answer...but try this:

1. What weight is the car at now?
2. How much do you weigh?
3. How much gas do you run?
4. What struts are you running?
5. What exhaust are you running?
6. Provide a picture of the cage so some experts can see if there are 'extra' bars in there
7. How much enduro stuff do you run in the car all the time
8. How much do your wheels weigh? What tires do you run?
9. Is 100% of the undercoating gone?
10. Do you run a cell? How big?

All of these are designed to prove/disprove any amount of weight than come out.

I am sure there are plenty of other questions to ask. You say in your e-mail to me that you had hoped the ITAC would make new recommendations on weights for your car. It would seem like you want, what you perceive to be, a more attainable weight. But what is the net/net? Nothing. If you are at 2750 in a 280Z, I think you have a lot of weight to remove. If there is 100lbs of difference in bumpers and chassis, that still brings the car in well under 2600...

Having said all that, just like the 944 excersize, if this car CAN'T get close to minimum, it should be considered for ITA IMHO.

[x-ring]

Personally, I always hired little drivers. :eclipsee_steering:
[/b]

Gee, Keith, thanks for the tip. :(

Ty, at 6&#39;-04" and 230 lbs: Ballast has never been a problem for me <_<

[irondragon]

I began this rant to try to bring some daylight into the swamp of how the p/w ratio concerns were being resolved. So I&#39;m happy with the resulting discussions and have learned a lot.
But the questions which I still find left unanswered are these:
-how were the Z-car weights determined?
-is there a 280Z which is both class compliant and structurally competent which weighs 2505 pds?
-why was the decision made to encourage possibly illegal andf unsafe weight removal from low powered cars, rather than to ballast up high powered ones?

It is not a question of how much weight I have stripped out of my car but rather of whether the specified weight is attainable at all. If not then the process is flawed and the resulting p/w ratios are phony.

Several people have been very helpful with suggestions for weight removal, and I appreciate them. Some are applicable to my racing situation and some not. For instance, the car is a 12-hour enduro racer and therefore I have opted for more fuel capacity than a sprint racer would choose.
But I am a bit leery about taking out cage elements. Cage design is a bit of a guesswork job at best as no one really knows what impact loads will be applied to which pieces. So I don&#39;t like p/w ratio solutions that encourage people to lighten cars by removing structural elements.
My whole purpose was to try to get ITAC to rethink the p/w ratio problems and to create realistic solutions.
One reply indicated that the writer thought I was confrontational and this is correct. Fact is I see this as a situation which needed to be confronted and I have attempted to do it in an agressive but polite way with no name calling or derogatory statements about individuals.
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe Iron Dragon Racing

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill - please address the questions I asked. I have never sat in your car but I have raced against it and seen it. I wouldn&#39;t classify it as a 100% sprint-car effort. THAT is what these specs rely on. If you can get into the low 2500&#39;s with a new (and safe) build, it is fine as is. Just because your enduro-centric car is overweight has no bearing on the issue actually. In answering the questions for us, we will get an idea of what is left. 2 Z-car guys have weighed in expressing that they are confident the weight is possible. Your expereince with your car may be contrary, but lets learn why.

- NOBODY is suggesting you sacrifice safety but the fact remains that there are plenty of &#39;overbuilt&#39; cages out there - and while that is great, it can&#39;t be a classification data point.

You have a choice. 2505 in ITS or around 2900 in ITA (should it be determined that your make/model can&#39;t make weight). Some guys consider adding weight to there cars to be a safety issue as well. Reducing the min weights to the low end on some cars is a lot easier that telling a lot of cars they have to add weight. Bottom line again - if the 280Z can&#39;t hit in the area of that weight, it should be considered for a move (and that day is the day I stary building one - Hello, Rebello?, Top Tech? - I love those cars.)

Rants are great but lets fill in the blanks on your prep level and current weight before we go marching off into the night with our pitchforks.

[Joe Harlan]

Bill - please address the questions I asked. I have never sat in your car but I have raced against it and seen it. I wouldn&#39;t classify it as a 100% sprint-car effort. THAT is what these specs rely on. If you can get into the low 2500&#39;s with a new (and safe) build, it is fine as is. Just because your enduro-centric car is overweight has no bearing on the issue actually. In answering the questions for us, we will get an idea of what is left. 2 Z-car guys have weighed in expressing that they are confident the weight is possible. Your expereince with your car may be contrary, but lets learn why.

- NOBODY is suggesting you sacrifice safety but the fact remains that there are plenty of &#39;overbuilt&#39; cages out there - and while that is great, it can&#39;t be a classification data point.

You have a choice. 2505 in ITS or around 2900 in ITA (should it be determined that your make/model can&#39;t make weight). Some guys consider adding weight to there cars to be a safety issue as well. Reducing the min weights to the low end on some cars is a lot easier that telling a lot of cars they have to add weight. Bottom line again - if the 280Z can&#39;t hit in the area of that weight, it should be considered for a move (and that day is the day I stary building one - Hello, Rebello?, Top Tech? - I love those cars.)

Rants are great but lets fill in the blanks on your prep level and current weight before we go marching off into the night with our pitchforks.
[/b]


Bill, Your right.....When I was consulted I said that the weight was too light....NOt because it couldn&#39;t be made or that it was unsafe but because I felt I could get better HP than the P/W they were shooting for. I am still convinced even with out an ECU it could make the HP to get the job done in that car. Of all the z&#39;s classed I feel the 280 has the best shot at front runner status.....Maybe I&#39;m stupid or maybe I am good who knows....but the car is 400cc&#39;s bigger has better valve area a good head better cam profile, EFI, 5 speeds better rear brakes and only has to be 75 lbs heavier....No brainer to me.....WIll not beat a non restricted E36 but is gonna run at the pointy end if done correctly.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, are we talking about the Z or the ZX? Didn&#39;t the 280z still have 4-speed, drum brakes, et. al?

I honestly don&#39;t know - just asking.

[kthomas]

"I did forget the suspension in the 280 is heavier than the 240. I am betting a person could save about 35 to 40 labs running the early strut housings."

Not that much heavier. Couple pounds per corner maybe. Heck, some of the 240&#39;s are running 280 struts anyway, and nearly all are running 280 stub axles and other 280 bits.

I did forget about the bumpers though. I knew about the extra metal to back them up. Still, I think its possible.

6&#39;4" and 230 lbs, well speaking as a crew chief, thats a lump o&#39; weight in the wrong place. But I guess if he&#39;s bringing the money...... ;)

[Joe Harlan]

"I did forget the suspension in the 280 is heavier than the 240. I am betting a person could save about 35 to 40 labs running the early strut housings."

Not that much heavier. Couple pounds per corner maybe. Heck, some of the 240&#39;s are running 280 struts anyway, and nearly all are running 280 stub axles and other 280 bits.

I did forget about the bumpers though. I knew about the extra metal to back them up. Still, I think its possible.

6&#39;4" and 230 lbs, well speaking as a crew chief, thats a lump o&#39; weight in the wrong place. But I guess if he&#39;s bringing the money...... ;)
[/b]

That"s why god created Nascar........:) if your fat ass is on the outside yer goin backards.


Jeff. 280Z= 2.8 + 5spd+R200 diff and FI....

[irondragon]

More on the Z-car weight rant.
Andy is correct. Because I am an enduro racer I have not lightened the car as much as could be achieved for sprint racing.
But that is not relevant to the question I am trying to get answered.
Which is this:
Why did ITAC/CRB choose to address the p/w ratio problem in IT by directing racers toward lightening their lower powered cars rather than ballasting up the better engined ones.??

First, approach in my view is very hard to police for class violations and potentially dangerous when done by those who don&#39;t understand chassis/suspension design.
Second approach, also in my view, is easy to police and doesn&#39;t involve tech scrutineers being asked to evaluate the mechanical consequences of material removal.

So why is the p/w ratio problem being solved in the way we currently are doing it??
And can we not do it more easily and safely??

Best Regards - Bill Miskoe

[JeffYoung]

I think you are making a broad generalization on how the weight process was done based on what happened with your car only.

What really happened was that several bogeys were established for each class -- for ITS, I believe it was the 240z and the RX7. A target power to weight ratio was established based on this bogey. Cars then either got or lost weight to make what is now known as their "process weight" - the weight at which they achieve the bogey power/weight ratio given the expected horsepower from their motor.

In S, the BMW would have gotten weight, but due to a variety of issues that we really don&#39;t need to go into again, it got an SIR instead. Other cars shed weight, although it wasn&#39;t many -- basically the 260z, 280z, 300zx and the 944.

In A, the opposite was true, several cars gained weight.

So to say that in all cases, weight was removed from cars to meet the process weight is wrong. In fact, reductions in weight were fairly limited.

[Gary L]

....Why did ITAC/CRB choose to address the p/w ratio problem in IT by directing racers toward lightening their lower powered cars rather than ballasting up the better engined ones.??

First, approach in my view is very hard to police for class violations and potentially dangerous when done by those who don&#39;t understand chassis/suspension design.
Second approach, also in my view, is easy to police and doesn&#39;t involve tech scrutineers being asked to evaluate the mechanical consequences of material removal.

So why is the p/w ratio problem being solved in the way we currently are doing it??
And can we not do it more easily and safely??

Best Regards - Bill Miskoe [/b]

You&#39;ve lost me, not that it&#39;s hard to do. :blink: Ignoring the obvious roll cage decisions that must be made, where exactly were you planning on removing "material" from the vehicle structure that would have any measurable effect on the safety or integrity of the vehicle, while staying within the IT ruleset?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Which is this:
Why did ITAC/CRB choose to address the p/w ratio problem in IT by directing racers toward lightening their lower powered cars rather than ballasting up the better engined ones.??[/b]

Isn&#39;t this 6 of one and a half dozen of another? IF the cars in question can make weight, it is moot. And as Jake said, some cars gained, some cars lost. IIRC, most lost but that was because they were set rediculously high for reasons unknown.


First, approach in my view is very hard to police for class violations and potentially dangerous when done by those who don&#39;t understand chassis/suspension design.[/b]

I will flip this on you - you create a more dangerous situation with these &#39;people who don&#39;t understand chassis/suspension design&#39; by making their cars heavier and harder on parts.



Second approach, also in my view, is easy to police and doesn&#39;t involve tech scrutineers being asked to evaluate the mechanical consequences of material removal.[/b]

There should be no material removal in IT, PERIOD. If your car is going to be tight on weight, do the minimum cage to be safe, buy the lightest parts (wheels, struts, exhaust, etc) and then if you are under, add in some &#39;optional&#39; cage tubes.


So why is the p/w ratio problem being solved in the way we currently are doing it??
And can we not do it more easily and safely??

Best Regards - Bill Miskoe [/b]

Bill, you might have to help us understand by giving us examples of unsafe (but legal) removal - or whatever you are talking about. You came out guns blazing that the 280Z can&#39;t make 2505 with a 180lb driver. What are you basing this on?

[irondragon]

I have tried to avoid getting this topic to the stage where I have to deal with individuals.
But this is directed to Jeff Young, based on a recent response he made.
Jeff: you have mentioned the process using certain &#39;bogeys&#39;, whatever they are. Further you state that some cars, including my 280Z group have to &#39; shed weight&#39;.
I continue to ask : has anyone who recommends &#39;shedding weight&#39; ever gone into the details of how it might be legally and structurally safely done?? Anyone can cut out metal but I ask again &#39;can it be legally and structurally safely done&#39;?
I have had a lot of kind suggestions about what might happen to the Z-cars but so far no one has really answered that question.
Structural safety is something that I take very seriously. In particular I respect the Datsun designers and don&#39;t choose to second guess their expertize by deciding which bits of the car I can cut out to shed weight.
Jeff, would you like to come up to my shop and show me how my car can &#39;shed weight&#39; and still compete safely?
I have been in the metal bending business for about 40 years and have written reports on many failures. For this reason I don&#39;t believe that it is likely that a car that was never originally built for racing will enhance its structural integrity on the track by shedding weight. Please show how to do it.
I&#39;ll make you welcome and feed you well if you do because I&#39;ll be ahead after you show me what I don&#39;t seem to know. I take this stuff seriously.
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

Why are you ignoring my request to learn more about your car? By asking Jeff to help you find spots to legally and safely remove weight from your car, you are implying that it is as light as it can get - and you can&#39;t get to minimum weight - yet we already know it&#39;s an endro build...with big cell etc. Last I saw it, it had extra lighting on it.

You started this thread in a very inflammatory fashion inferring you had been unjustly wronged. You asked those responsible to explain. Well, we are here. We are asking you specific questions to help qualify the &#39;problem&#39;. If a well built and safe 280Z can make low 2500&#39;s, there is no reason to be doing this. Help us understand your prep level by addressing post #16.

I also don&#39;t know why you keep stating you don&#39;t want to cut out OEM stuff...why? No rule allows you to do so other than door skins for NASCAR bars that I can think of? We have explained that some cars gained and some cars lost. If a car can make weight, less is always better, no?

If there is a mistake, it should be fixed - but you have not proven to anyone there is a mistake.

[MMiskoe]

I&#39;m going to open my mouth & stick my foot in it too.

However since I have a 300zx which lost 140 pounds I am not pleased w/ the situation either.

A couple of questions to be answered, please enlighten me:

- why should weight become as hard to attain as the ultimate HP that the car is rated against? The &#39;100% effort&#39; cars will relocate the weight to their best advantage whereas the lesser thought out cars will just lug it around w/o considering it so there is still room for the 100% cars to gain over the others. This is one variable that you can level the playing field on if everyone has a weight they can reach.

- how much has anyone actually removed in weight by removing undercoating? I&#39;ve removed a lot of it and can&#39;t see any appreciable gains in it. I can see 5-10 pounds across the entire car, but that&#39;s not what we&#39;re arguing about here.

- Why did the RX7 become the roll model for ITS?

- Why would anyone be pleased that they now have a minimum weight that is lower if its a weight that is not attainable? Un-attainable weights are no different than arbitrary HP numbers that no one will ever get to.

- In ITA where the weights went up & down across many cars, has there been any noticiable change? Good or bad? IE did this whole thing have any affect?

And specific to this thread, did I mis-interpert what people are saying be suggesting that the early 240 suspension bits be used on a 280? This either raises some serious update/backdate questions or legality issues, never mind I hope no one who suggests doing this is on the boat complaining that cars that are too heavy will be unsafe because the suspension is overloaded.


I&#39;m about a week away from weighing my 300zx now that the doors are both gutted, but I am estimating that I will still be 50-60# over the new minimum and I only weigh 155# when I get out of the car (so I think I have the &#39;little driver&#39; part covered). When I do, I&#39;ll post the numbers & do as my dad did & invite people to come show me the parts I missed.


Matt

[irondragon]

Andy and others:
This is not about my car. Never has been.
My question has always been:
Why was the decision made to require existing cars to lower their weights rather than to add weight to new cars with more power??
Please answer this, it is the fundamental question as it concerns many more cars than mine .

Never mind what I or other old car owners have not done. Not really relevant.
The older cars were already built and racing at weights which had been in the ITS regs for many years.We built our cars to specs in place at the time. Why should we change?
It is hard enough to find parts and keep these older ITS cars racing. We don&#39;t need now to be told that the class has been changed to accomodate newer cars and that if we want to stay competitive it is our cars that must change.
If it was the newer cars with better p/w ratios that were causing problems in IT why were these newer cars not the ones required to make changes?? Or why were they not put in a separate class from ITS??
For all the prancing about over what I have not done to change my car to avail myself of the new requirements I still have not had an answer to the first question above.
So, will someone please answer the first question at least, and then perhaps the others that follow on??
After that happens I will be glad to hear suggestions from experienced Z-car racers on how I can make my 280Z more competitive.
Best Regards as always - Bill

[Joe Harlan]

Bill, I can see weight in exhaust/ Fuel Cell/wheels/ and this is what I can see on the surface.

http://www.zccne.org/Dyno-Day2001/bill_miskoe_dyno2.jpg Want some more help how about some other photos?

The process will never be perfect and the fact is when a 280 gets doen to weight and is fully developed it will be a front runner period....

[zracre]

I believe there is an ideal power to weight formula which would pop out a parameter. All the cars currently classed have an ideal weight to be as close to equal ground as possible. Some cars are fat, some skinny and some ideal. If your car falls on one side or the other it is just one of those cars...do the best you can. There are a ton of cars to choose from and alot of effort went into getting everyone happy. not every one is. My car gets 115#...Jakes car loses more than he can take out. That is the nature of the class...they could have lowered the parameters of ITS but why?? There is pretty good balance with the formula and your issue is a by product...you cant make all the people happy all the time...

[Joe Harlan]

I&#39;m going to open my mouth & stick my foot in it too.

However since I have a 300zx which lost 140 pounds I am not pleased w/ the situation either.

A couple of questions to be answered, please enlighten me:

- why should weight become as hard to attain as the ultimate HP that the car is rated against? The &#39;100% effort&#39; cars will relocate the weight to their best advantage whereas the lesser thought out cars will just lug it around w/o considering it so there is still room for the 100% cars to gain over the others. This is one variable that you can level the playing field on if everyone has a weight they can reach.

- how much has anyone actually removed in weight by removing undercoating? I&#39;ve removed a lot of it and can&#39;t see any appreciable gains in it. I can see 5-10 pounds across the entire car, but that&#39;s not what we&#39;re arguing about here.

- Why did the RX7 become the roll model for ITS?

- Why would anyone be pleased that they now have a minimum weight that is lower if its a weight that is not attainable? Un-attainable weights are no different than arbitrary HP numbers that no one will ever get to.

- In ITA where the weights went up & down across many cars, has there been any noticiable change? Good or bad? IE did this whole thing have any affect?

And specific to this thread, did I mis-interpert what people are saying be suggesting that the early 240 suspension bits be used on a 280? This either raises some serious update/backdate questions or legality issues, never mind I hope no one who suggests doing this is on the boat complaining that cars that are too heavy will be unsafe because the suspension is overloaded.
I&#39;m about a week away from weighing my 300zx now that the doors are both gutted, but I am estimating that I will still be 50-60# over the new minimum and I only weigh 155# when I get out of the car (so I think I have the &#39;little driver&#39; part covered). When I do, I&#39;ll post the numbers & do as my dad did & invite people to come show me the parts I missed.
Matt
[/b]

Matt what I said was to use the 240 struts completely legal.....don&#39;t try to make something where its not. Not to be rude but the photos I have found I wouls say prep likely is the biggest issue in this deal. You don&#39;t have to race at the current weight you are welcome to run the car heavy. Fact is the 240z and the RX7 are the same as they always have been so you are no worse off today than you were last year. Good luck with this rediculous issue...

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, we are sort of getting somewhere. I know and respect Matt and we have had some good discussions in the past so I know I can talk turkey.

- In a perfect world, prep would be easy for everyone. Some cars have to go the extra mile to make weight (ITS 944), some have to go the EM to make power (ITA Miata), some have to go the EM to make them turn (ITA NX2000). Most cars have a wart. We deal with them...

You are 50lbs in car plus 25lbs in driver over the new minimum (180lb driver assumption). There are many things I bet could get you to within 25lbs. Expensive? Yes. 9lb wheels aren&#39;t cheap but I bet you find 16 of your 75 right there...

2nd gen RX-7&#39;s have over 45lbs of sound deadening INSIDE the car. Weighed it as it came out on 2 cars.

The RX-7 isn&#39;t a &#39;role model&#39; - it is one of the cars that represented the &#39;core&#39; of the performance envelope for ITS - along with the 240Z. Similar bogies were used in A, B and C - and now R. A target P/W was established and weights set.

Nobody would be pleased that a weight is given that can&#39;t be made. I have yet to be shown that the 280Z can&#39;t make it so I have no idea what the beef is - and your car is SO close right now (inside 75lbs without REALLY trying). You guys prep for fun and enduro&#39;s. Would you say you have a build that in theory should be a front runner if it made minimum weight? I love you Matt but do you have a "Pro" motor? If you don&#39;t, then sniping about 75lbs is a bit disingenuous to me. YMMV.

I don&#39;t believe there were any noticable changes in ITA but you may get other opinions on that. It wasn&#39;t about comp adjustments. It was about resetting the weights in the GCR based on a process that laid the foundation for &#39;estimated parity&#39; today and in the future. On-track results are not key data points until they show a preponderence of evidence that something is BROKEN, then PCA&#39;s can help the issue.

Now to Bill:

Why would we add weight to a car for no reason when another car can attain a lighter weight? It HAS TO BE about your car Bill. If your car weighed 2505, would you have started this thread? HELP US understand your prep level so we can understand the weight is bogus or you can understand you need to do some &#39;better&#39; prep.

You don&#39;t have to change. Race at your old weight and finish in the EXACT SAME SPOT you usually do - or - try and take advantage of a correction to your weight and become more competitive and easier on parts. It&#39;s up to you and there is nothing illegal about coming in overweight in impound.

the cars with better power potential did move - to ITR. A new class. I feel like am running in sand here...if the 280Z can make 2505, then it has the same theoretical chance in ITS as a 240Z, RX-7, you name it. heck - obe top Nissan guy thinks it could be THE car to have! What more do you want?

Matt is familiar with the prep level of the cars that win in ITS and ITA in NER. I am GUESSING - and please correct me if I am wrong here - that you guys aren&#39;t near there...and you may never want to be - but that is not the issue - you COULD be if you wanted to. What makes it fair that some have to spend more in some areas? Nothing. IT is what it is.

What am I missing? Someone else jump in.

[MMiskoe]

In a perfect world, prep would be easy for everyone. Some cars have to go the extra mile to make weight (ITS 944), some have to go the EM to make power (ITA Miata), some have to go the EM to make them turn (ITA NX2000). Most cars have a wart. We deal with them...[/b]

Understood, but by creating weights difficult (or impossible) to achieve you have created another "wart" for some cars.



You are 50lbs in car plus 25lbs in driver over the new minimum (180lb driver assumption). There are many things I bet could get you to within 25lbs. Expensive? Yes. 9lb wheels aren&#39;t cheap but I bet you find 16 of your 75 right there...[/b]

True. Now where is the other 59 pounds coming from?



2nd gen RX-7&#39;s have over 45lbs of sound deadening INSIDE the car. Weighed it as it came out on 2 cars.[/b]

Re-read the question. I&#39;m asking about all the stuff on the outside that takes an air chisle & wire brush to remove.



The RX-7 isn&#39;t a &#39;role model&#39; - it is one of the cars that represented the &#39;core&#39; of the performance envelope for ITS - along with the 240Z. Similar bogies were used in A, B and C - and now R. A target P/W was established and weights set.[/b]

Difference of nickname, but why not run the weights up on these cars so that more cars have a chance? I haven&#39;t heard this one yet.



Nobody would be pleased that a weight is given that can&#39;t be made. I have yet to be shown that the 280Z can&#39;t make it so I have no idea what the beef is - and your car is SO close right now (inside 75lbs without REALLY trying). You guys prep for fun and enduro&#39;s. Would you say you have a build that in theory should be a front runner if it made minimum weight? I love you Matt but do you have a "Pro" motor? If you don&#39;t, then sniping about 75lbs is a bit disingenuous to me. YMMV.[/b]

How do you say I haven&#39;t really tried? The car is legal and I still need 59#&#39;s (I&#39;m giving you the wheels as they are very attainable). We&#39;re not talking about cleaning the marbles out of the wheel wells here.

"SO close" is single digits my friend. "SO close" sweating how much fuel is in the car at the end of the race or remembering to add balast when you lose 10# off the driver over the winter.

Like I said, I&#39;ll get the car weighed and then you can tell me what else to change. I am truely curious about this.

This would be the same conversation if a HP # had been picked that was off the charts and it still wouldn&#39;t matter if I had made weight or not. Its not about if you have done the work, its about IF it can be done and what merited changing some cars down, not others up?


I don&#39;t believe there were any noticable changes in ITA but you may get other opinions on that.[/b]

So it was all for naught?



It wasn&#39;t about comp adjustments. It was about resetting the weights in the GCR based on a process that laid the foundation for &#39;estimated parity&#39; today and in the future. On-track results are not key data points until they show a preponderence of evidence that something is BROKEN, then PCA&#39;s can help the issue.[/b]

Now I&#39;m really confused. If nothing was broken, why did it change? If it was broken then they were comp adjustments.


Matt

[irondragon]

Andy and others:
I have already stated that this is not about my enduro car which will not and does not have to make a new minimum weight to be good in those races.
The question which you continue to avoid answering is this:
Why do older ITS sprint race cars built to long existing weight requirements and which cannot increase their power, have to reduce their weights because newer cars with better p/w ratios are entering the class and are changing the overall class p/w ratio which for some reason must stay the same??

You keep going on about my car and its lack of competitiveness - which in sprint racing I acknowledge is true but don&#39;t care about because I only run enduro&#39;s - while I keep asking you the fundamental questions:

- why do older sprint cars already built to long established ITS weights have to change because newer cars are entering the class and causing p/w ratio problems??
-why not have the newer cars meet the ITS p/w requirements by using ballast or race in some other class??
Please answer the fundamental questions.


And to the person that challenged my lack of willingness to meet weight requirements by posting a picture of my black and white 280Z on the dyno in Manchester : That car was wrecked and retired in 2003.
Where have you been and what relationship does that picture have to this discussion, other than to provide you an obsolete soapbox to preach irrelevant stuff from?
If you are going to use my car as a basis for criticizing my complaints about the IT classification process then at least be up to date. Come and take a look at the one I have now.
But that is not the point of all this.
Bad enough the black car got wrecked: but worse still that it is being used by someone who clearly doesn&#39;t know much about it, to involve it in a discussion that is not really about any car I race.
I say again - It&#39;s not about my car - it&#39;s about the classification process.
I race for fun so it&#39;s not about how competitive my own car is.
What I care about is ITS and right now I&#39;m not convinced that the method used for dealing with p/w ratios is correct.
Perhaps I&#39;m wrong and it is a good method, but I won&#39;t be convinced until people stop blathering about my lack of attempt to meet weight, and answer my question about the process.
Can that please happen?
All for now - Bill

[Joe Harlan]

Matt, What sized fuel cell do you run?

Bill, your question is confusing as hell. The 240z is one of the oldest of not the oldest ITS model listed and it did not change weight? How can you say everyone else is getting boned. The 280 has been boned from its first listing due to the fact those that originally classified it didn&#39;t hav a clue. So now the ITac does something to bring these cars closer together and your unhappy....There is just no reason I can see for you to be discouraged.

[shwah]

I have no dog in this fight, but the logic is killing me.

Cars were identified as the benchmark for each class.
Those cars were not changed (that I know of), and are just as fast today as they were before.
Some cars, including the 280Z were given a weight reduction.

I don&#39;t care if you can reach the spec weight or not, you are now free to make you car lighter than it was. Listening to you this means you will be able to make the car as light as legally possible in IT prep.
What this means is that your car will be faster and more reliable overall.
Yet the benchmark cars are just as fast as they once were....
Even if you only get halfway to the spec weight you come out ahead of where you were before the change.

And IF someone were to embark on an all out effort, I suspect they could get pretty close to the spec weight, by considering everything. That would be a big effort, and would include a bare metal shell, right radiator, right hoses, right cell, right size fuel lines, right wheels, right tires, right seat, right gauge package, right cage, right everything that you have legal control of. Sounds awful expensive to me, but so does running at the front of ITS.

Having said all of that, if someone were to give some information/data to the ITAC that verifies the weight to be unatainable, it sounds like they would be happy to listen. That is a much more likely course of events than them telling you how to prep a car they may not race.

I do wish I had this problem with my car though. I would love to shed some weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Understood, but by creating weights difficult (or impossible) to achieve you have created another "wart" for some cars. [/b]

There will always be tweeners.


True. Now where is the other 59 pounds coming from?[/b]

Matt, I am sure you can find the weight. You running a lightweight clutch.pressure plate? Mine is 4.4 pounds lighter than stock. Lightweight exhaust? FIA seat? Hollow sway bars? You get the picture.


Re-read the question. I&#39;m asking about all the stuff on the outside that takes an air chisle & wire brush to remove.[/b]

We don&#39;t fine many cars with any significant undercoating. It&#39;s the interior rubberized insulation that is big for us. 45+lbs worth. I am assuming your interior is smooooooth...


Difference of nickname, but why not run the weights up on these cars so that more cars have a chance? I haven&#39;t heard this one yet.[/b] Lets first prove that there are any significant amount of cars that CAN&#39;T. When weights dropped, we did some research to see if they could. I think you are going to be close. Single digit close. FWIW, when I rolled of of LRP with the track record in October last year, I was 40lbs over minimum. 1.5%.


How do you say I haven&#39;t really tried? The car is legal and I still need 59#&#39;s (I&#39;m giving you the wheels as they are very attainable). We&#39;re not talking about cleaning the marbles out of the wheel wells here.[/b]I am estimating based on what little I see of your cars at the track and your reactions to some of teh parts we have on our cars.


"SO close" is single digits my friend. "SO close" sweating how much fuel is in the car at the end of the race or remembering to add balast when you lose 10# off the driver over the winter.[/b]

See my LRP comment above. 10lbs on your car is what %? Come on.

Like I said, I&#39;ll get the car weighed and then you can tell me what else to change. I am truely curious aboutthis.

This would be the same conversation if a HP # had been picked that was off the charts and it still wouldn&#39;t matter if I had made weight or not. Its not about if you have done the work, its about IF it can be done and what merited changing some cars down, not others up?


So it was all for naught?

Now I&#39;m really confused. If nothing was broken, why did it change? If it was broken then they were comp adjustments.

Matt [/b]

I explained what the change was about, not a shift in performance. It has been explained probably a hundred times on this site. The ITA classes are what they are now. No crazy overdogs as a result of some arbitrary weights. Matt, if you can get within 25lbs, I think you are all set...and how about that &#39;Pro&#39; motor? You have the overbore? The extra half point in Compression? Balance/Blueprint? Ported heads and a legal valve job? Nice dyno tested intake and header? A/F mixture tweaked up on the dyno? Port matched? Like I said before, if you aren&#39;t maxing all other aspects of your program, arguing about the last 10-50lbs of minimum weight ain&#39;t keeping you off the podium.



The ITAC believes the 300ZX and the 280Z can make their minimums. If we were wrong, prove it to us and then make a suggestion - and the suggestion is going to be what? Add 50lbs to EVERY CAR IN ITS so yours can get to minimum?

[zracre]

- why do older sprint cars already built to long established ITS weights have to change because newer cars are entering the class and causing p/w ratio problems??
-why not have the newer cars meet the ITS p/w requirements by using ballast or race in some other class??
[/b]

If we go by this way of thinking we will never class newer cars...I raced a Z...a 280 and a 240/260 vintage car. They are now vintage cars...I love them (see screenname) but just like any class a car can only be top dog for so long...or else why bother...technology is a big part of our sport and the more advanced cars get the faster the more advanced cars get. :wacko: If I remember correctly the 280Z was not far off the weight. One could be built close to the weight. I would be happy someone is trying to keep eveyone in the game...they could have just said its too old go race vintage...

[irondragon]

To Joe Harlan:
Again -it&#39;s not about my car. It&#39;s not about the picture of the 280Z on the dyno. It&#39;s not about the 280Z&#39;s as a group.
It is about the process of trying to deal with p/w ratios in ITS that are being altered by the inclusion of newer cars.
It is about asking the older cars to make weight changes so that the entry of the newer cars won&#39;t disrupt the prevailing p/w ratios.
It is about whether these weight changes are possible, legal or structurally acceptable.
It is about the whole concept of dealing with p/w ratios.
I&#39;m glad I have stirred up this much interest but sorry that it has not been directed at the question I keep asking.
Sopmehow, eventually, we&#39;ll get past the business of my car and then we&#39;ll get to deal with all the cars in ITS.
Best Regards- Bill Miskoe

[JeffYoung]

Bill, with all due respect, you are being told over and over how the process worked and why. You just aren&#39;t listening. Good luck to you. I am done here.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The question which you continue to avoid answering is this:
Why do older ITS sprint race cars built to long existing weight requirements and which cannot increase their power, have to reduce their weights because newer cars with better p/w ratios are entering the class and are changing the overall class p/w ratio which for some reason must stay the same??

- why do older sprint cars already built to long established ITS weights have to change because newer cars are entering the class and causing p/w ratio problems??
-why not have the newer cars meet the ITS p/w requirements by using ballast or race in some other class??
Please answer the fundamental questions.

[/b]

Bill the issue is that you have stated that the 280Z can&#39;t make weight. Help me understand why you think that. I am harping on your car because that is what I see as your data point. If it can - and I think it can based on feedback here and when we did this - the whole argument is MOOT. Your car got a corrected weight to the ITS target.

The corrolary to your argument is this: "Why would you add weight to all our cars when you could lower the weights of a few and we can all run lighter? Lighter is safer, faster and more reliable." If the cars can make the new weight, all is fine. We felt it was better to go lighter than go heavier.

The P/W ratios for these classes have not changed. They were ESTABLISHED. As Joe said, one of the core cars for ITS was the 240Z. Been around longer than your car...just because your weight was so far off - and we corrected it...my head is spinning.

Could there have been some mistakes? Sure but so far we are on track until proven otherwise - and personally, if you can get to within 50lbs of published minimum, you are fine. there are way to many other variables that take this out of the realm of measurment. This ain&#39;t Spec Miata or SRF.

Let me ask you this hypothetical because I really do want to get you an answer:

If the current P/W ratio for ITS is right where the 240Z is, are you suggesting that the 240Z be raised up to meet the &#39;error&#39; 280Z P/W? What I think you are suggestion is that we use the lowest common denominator to ensure all cars can make weight. Well in effect we did that. Of teh few cars that lost weight in ITS, we took an EDUCATED guess. We believe they can make weight...and if they can, there is no problem...at some point a target has to be set...maybe you wanted everyone to gain weight so all existing cars not have to do anything else - even though they could. I disagree with that position.

[shwah]

I think I may see the disconnect here.

Bill - If I read correctly, you are convinced that the establishment of class norms was stricktly done to allow classification of newer cars in IT classes.

In reality these norms were established because it became apparant that there was little rhyme or reason to setting of weights over the past few decades, and several cars were out of whack. Some were new ones like E36 BMWs, some were older ones like VW Rabbit GTIs. The picture is bigger than the one you are seeing, and it was not driven simply by newer potentially faster cars.

Even if we never classified another car in IT, the process needed to be fixed. Thank goodness it was, and as an added benefit we now have a structured method to classify dreaded newer cars without making our beloved older cars also rans. The class norms are what will protect you with your 30 year old car and me with my 20 year old car for the next decade from being blown away by a newer platform.

[GKR_17]

I sympathise with the folks who got weight (especially the ITS Del Sol and Civic), but this is ridiculous. Sure seems Bill liked it better at 2750 lbs, and no SIR for the ITS E36.

[JeffYoung]

Amen Grafton.

[irondragon]

This is my last one on this topic, so everyone can now give a big sigh of relief.
As I see it ITAC and CRB made a big mistake by trying to deal with p/w ratio inequities by setting unattainably low weights for some of the older cars.
Two reasons:
- the process is not sustainable. As better p/w ratio cars time out of SS and want to get into IT it will not work to address the p/w ratio problem by just knocking a few more hundred pounds out of the Z-cars. We need a very different approach.
- the assumption that lower allowable weights will lead to &#39;lighter, faster, safer&#39; cars is very questionable. Very likely lighter and faster. But I wonder about safer. I suspect that very few people who start chopping metal out of a monocoque structure are doing it by other than guesswork, so I am a bit fearful of the effects on structural integrity. No roll cage is &#39;overbuilt&#39; at the moment it saves your life and who is to rationally decide which pieces should be taken out to reduce weight now that we have lower allowables. I know my car could lose some weight but I&#39;m not sure I want it to when I consider all three parts of -&#39;lighter,faster,safer&#39;. And I definitely don&#39;t want to find out about a wreck in which a driver suffers as a result of structural failures caused by unenlightened attempts to take advantage of new and lower allowable weights.
I just don&#39;t like where this process is headed and would like ITAC and CRB to do some rethinking.
And to those who have genuinely tried to be helpful with ways to take adavantage of the new weight for my 280Z - Thank You.
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe

[JeffYoung]

Bill -- cars with better pw/weight ratios than the present bogey in ITS will go to ITR. The weight on the Z cars will in all likelihood never be changed again.

[bldn10]

I think Bill&#39;s concern illustrates what I referred to as a paradigm shift over on the ECU thread. He is looking at the circumstance of introducing into IT modern cars w/ inherently better performance characteristics than the veterans. To level the playing field you basically have 2 options: penalize the new cars or bring the vets up to new performance levels. The latter can be done by, e.g., opening up the ECU rule, and/or lowering weight, etc. The fundamental decision appears to adjust the older cars. I guess it was assumed that not penalizing new cars and allowing benefits to old cars was the recipe for keeping the most folks happy, or at least not pissed off. That certainly is a logical approach. Bill&#39;s point of view is that you have an established population of cars, and that if anyone should have to adjust, it should be the new ones. That is not illogical. And, if the intended benefit given to the older cars is to a sigificant degree illusory, that is not a good solution. Like it or not, it looks like a change is a&#39;comin&#39;. The older cars will be given some leeway to become more "improved" but that will require new creativity, money, and effort. And that&#39;s all I have to say about that.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is my last one on this topic, so everyone can now give a big sigh of relief.[/b]

No way. If you have a beef, bring it up. The ITAC is willing to get the thought processes out there, no matter if it&#39;s popular or not. Better to speak up than to let it fester.



As I see it ITAC and CRB made a big mistake by trying to deal with p/w ratio inequities by setting unattainably low weights for some of the older cars.[/b]

This is why I keep going back to your car. We don&#39;t think, nor have we seen, that these weights are unattainable. They may seem low given poor classification in the past, but given all the info we have to date, they are attainable.


- the process is not sustainable. As better p/w ratio cars time out of SS and want to get into IT it will not work to address the p/w ratio problem by just knocking a few more hundred pounds out of the Z-cars. We need a very different approach.[/b]

The process is absolutely sustainable - and frankly has been for years. How many rejections has the Z32 300ZX gotten in the past when requested for classification? The ITS performance envelope has been nailed down - and as faster cars trickle down - they go to the newest IT class, ITR - with a whole new envelope. The Z cars are locked...as is every other car in IT until we get info of an error.


- the assumption that lower allowable weights will lead to &#39;lighter, faster, safer&#39; cars is very questionable. Very likely lighter and faster. But I wonder about safer. I suspect that very few people who start chopping metal out of a monocoque structure are doing it by other than guesswork, so I am a bit fearful of the effects on structural integrity. [/b]

Bill, I am not sure how many times we have to say this but what you are describing is neither safe NOR LEGAL. Nobdoy is suggesting that anyone chop up a car, just prep to the rules.


No roll cage is &#39;overbuilt&#39; at the moment it saves your life and who is to rationally decide which pieces should be taken out to reduce weight now that we have lower allowables. [/b]

The SCCA has a required minimum cage design for safety. Anything you would like to do above and beyond may add to that safety but it also adds weight and takes away from your competitive situation. It&#39;s your call but that &#39;option&#39; can&#39;t be factored in when minimum weights are being set.


I know my car could lose some weight but I&#39;m not sure I want it to when I consider all three parts of -&#39;lighter,faster,safer&#39;. And I definitely don&#39;t want to find out about a wreck in which a driver suffers as a result of structural failures caused by unenlightened attempts to take advantage of new and lower allowable weights.[/b]

To state it again, legal and safe weight reduction is what we are talking about here. Nothing more, nothing less. For most people, it&#39;s getting all the sound deadening out of the car and then taking a real long hard look at the parts they have on the car - or COULD have on the car that would safe significant weight (like wheels, radiator, sway bars, seats, struts, etc)

I just don&#39;t like where this process is headed and would like ITAC and CRB to do some rethinking.
And to those who have genuinely tried to be helpful with ways to take adavantage of the new weight for my 280Z - Thank You.
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe[/b]

Bring it out to NHIS and I will find you some weight savings. Prepare to bust out the wallet though... :D



The fundamental decision appears to adjust the older cars. I guess it was assumed that not penalizing new cars and allowing benefits to old cars was the recipe for keeping the most folks happy, or at least not pissed off. That certainly is a logical approach. Bill&#39;s point of view is that you have an established population of cars, and that if anyone should have to adjust, it should be the new ones. That is not illogical. And, if the intended benefit given to the older cars is to a sigificant degree illusory, that is not a good solution. Like it or not, it looks like a change is a&#39;comin&#39;. The older cars will be given some leeway to become more "improved" but that will require new creativity, money, and effort. And that&#39;s all I have to say about that. [/b]

Bill D - while your anaysis of the perception is correct, we have tried to explain that in reality it is not. Using terms like &#39;old&#39; and &#39;new&#39; is the wrong thing to do. A performance envelope was established and the 240Z was a core car. One of the oldest cars in the ITCS. Some newer cars lost weight, some old cars gained weight, some new cars gained weight and some old cars lost weight. Bill&#39;s just happened to be one that lost. Are we actually suggesting that we should have done this excersize in such a way that NO CARS lost weight - even if it was possible? Just add to everyone and be done? There was no predetermined goal based on age. Cars we set according to the process. Weights seeminly are attainable based on research and educated guesses. WHAT MORE DO WE WANT?

Nothing is a&#39;comin&#39;. It&#39;s all done - was done on Feb of 06. It&#39;s over, the foundation has been set for the future. If you have a car that can&#39;t make the new weight - prove it and it will get consideration for a change.

[lateapex911]

Jeeez....

I have to say, that the originl post complained that the process was dumb, because it ended up an an unattainable weight for a certain car. Now, it&#39;s been spun to "It&#39;s not about my car"....

Well, maybe I&#39;m boiling it down too far, but after reading all the really good explanations, (and lots of them from guys what aren&#39;t even on the ITAC! (Nice job guys!)), I think that it sounds like backpedaling.

Your original case was that your car couln&#39;t make weight, so the process was flawed. Then it was discussed, and it seems that we don&#39;t know that your car can&#39;t make weight. (All new light weight hardware? minimum sized light weight alum radiator? 9 pound carbon seat? No sunroof body? Lightest glass possible? Gutted doors with minimum nascar bars? stock tank vs light weigh cel analysis? lightweight short exhaust? light wheels? lightest tires? hollow sway bars? extranious brakets and surplus items allowed by the rules gone? all undercoating/sound deadening stripped? (almost 60 pounds on my car), light weight air cleaner? light weight dampers?...... just to start)

So, now it&#39;s about the process, and THAT&#39;s been explained ....

What SHOULD have been said was "I am curious about the method used to determine the performance envelope for each class when the IT process was put in place, as I have found that these cars: (then a list of cars) has been confirmed as being impossible to get to the new minimums"

But thats not been said here, and in acuality, we haven&#39;t cited ONE car that can&#39;t get close to minimum. So really, where&#39;s the issue?

It&#39;s NOT about new cars vs old cars...thats BS, as the oldest car on the books hits the performance envelope spot on. It&#39;s about getting as many cars as reasonably possible to fit in a 4 class structure, while affecting the least amount of cars as possible. (At the time the process and performance envelopes were being developed, ITR didn&#39;t exist, so the top car in ITS needed to be dealt with...if the E36 had been given weight (as the ITAC recommended) , it would have been like 300 pounds...and if the performance envelope had been altered for ITS so that all the top cars gained weight, that car would have gained even more...but, even discounting that one car, the process still works pretty well for the class, as we haven&#39;t determined that there are cars out there that can&#39;t approach the new standards.

So I really fail to see the issue here.

[Doc Bro]

What about that "old" Z-car that was doing really[i] well at the ARRC this year until he got taken out? Car didn&#39;t look too heavy to me, nor did it seem to be outdated. It also didn&#39;t look like a low budget car. It was impressive.

R

[lateapex911]

That car, and others like it, have been front of the pack standards for years. They are great cars, and have a loyal, and well respected owner goup, like Katman, who posts here. (I think that car was a 240 variant, driven by David Spillman...it was a shame to see it come to an end in the Corvette shmazzle...)

[MMiskoe]

A couple of points I&#39;d like to make, then I&#39;m done too.

For the record, a fuel cell in a 300zx is not a weight savings. 19 gallon tank is 1 pound lighter than an 8 gallon cell. (8 gallons isn&#39;t enough). No mounting hardware for either, fuel pump for both, gauge sending unit in the tank. I&#39;m guessing that this does not hold true for the earlier cars, but for this one at least, leaving the tank in the car is the better way to go.

Sorry to Joe for forgetting that struts are free. With that in mind I understand swapping 240 struts for 280.


Lastly my gripe w/ the weight reductions. No response necessary, but this is why I jumped in on this:

You&#39;ve got 4 basic performance enhancers/restrictors in our cars - driver, motor, suspension & weight. The first 3 are pretty un-quantifiable items. We could all drive better. No one will ever know how much power really can get made out of any given engine, someone will always find a bit more. What&#39;s the right setup? We&#39;re a pretty opinionated bunch here, but I think people will agree that there is no &#39;best&#39; suspension - there will always be room for improvment and lack of ability to measure/agree on what&#39;s best.

Weight however is the one performace parameter that we can measure. It is a quantifiable/measurable/repeatable part of the cars we drive. It also plays into all 3 of the other items listed above (not that the others don&#39;t cross pollinate, but I think weight is the most integrated of the 4 items I&#39;ve listed).

So cars that got their weight lowered now face the task of going back out and chasing that last pound. Now for a car that had the right ballast and could roll across the scales w/in 10 pounds of the class weight at post race/qualifying you have removed the one item that is the most concrete item on the list of performace items. It is class creep. Its a real pain the ass, encourages cheating, skimping on safety equipement and so on.

On the other hand, blocks of lead are moderately cheap and simple and would have allowed more cars to meet the parameters.

Seems that all the weights were changed a few years back to allow them to include the driver so people like me don&#39;t get an advantage over a linebacker, hence, make the change to allow more people to meet the parameter.

That&#39;s why this change makes me mad. A new &#39;wart&#39; was added. But I will admit that I really can&#39;t say that the 300zx won&#39;t make weight and until I do, I&#39;ll be quiet.

Matt

[Joe Harlan]

A couple of points I&#39;d like to make, then I&#39;m done too.

For the record, a fuel cell in a 300zx is not a weight savings. 19 gallon tank is 1 pound lighter than an 8 gallon cell. (8 gallons isn&#39;t enough). No mounting hardware for either, fuel pump for both, gauge sending unit in the tank. I&#39;m guessing that this does not hold true for the earlier cars, but for this one at least, leaving the tank in the car is the better way to go.

Matt
[/b]

Matt, You forget a couple of things here also. You get to cut the metal out of the truck floor for installation and that is a far amount of weight even with the hanging bracketry. A 19 gallon OE cell requires at leat 4 gals to pick up near the end of a race a cell doesn&#39;t there is a 28lbs savings all by its self.
leaving the stock tank is not a better way to go, Fuel slosh is never a good thing when changing direction. And last no issue with the strut thing we I only remember most of this stuff because I get paid to do it. Other wise there wouldn&#39;t any real reason to try to retain it. The Z31 is a bitchen car and I know Frank Honsowetz did a really nice one that he is running in Sopac. I will be down there in a couple weeks and hope to see the car. I am pretty positive he said his makes weight but I will confirm that when I see him.

[Mike Mackaman]

As a recipient of this largas from the comp board, I was dismayed at first as to how I would get 130lbs out of my 260Z safely and legally. But rather than complain, I went to work.
1. New header and reconfigured exhaust. - 11lbs
2. Nascar door bar on passenger side. -24lbs
3. Reconfigured seat mount. -15lbs
4. Understand the rule on tube diameter and wall thickness. -25lbs
5. Re-evaluate need for helmet blower cooler, but leave blower. -8lbs

Still on the books:
1. Tubular swaybar. -8lbs
2. Aluminum pressure plate. -7lbs
3. Remove 30lbs of unnecessary weight from behind the steering wheel. -30lbs

If my pencil is properly sharpened, I am at the new minimum. No rules were violated, no animals harmed!

And at -30lbs, the loss of the helmet blower cooler won&#39;t be that big a deal. It is all about accepting a challenge.

One other key thing that my tight backside likes about the above is that I didn&#39;t kill my wallet in doing this. I built the header myself, bought one stick of tubing, some scrap aluminum and some time on the lathe at work and some favors on a mill with a super spacer for the pressure plate and a ton of self control and work on the 30lbs. It was fun by the way, not so much the 30 lbs part, but the rest was very much fun!!!

Mike

[Stan]

Congrats Mike! :smilie_pokal:

PS - Future complaints about the CRB reducing IT weights will be referred to Mike for remedial education... ;)

[zracre]

Ok so you want to lower the bar in ITS instead of keeping it the same? There are more cars that would have been affected by slowing everyone down to make things fit. They took a good numerical model and tried to get everyone to fit. Besides, if they slow ITS down the ITS front runners will be more in my way :P I am happy my GSR (which I havent raced yet but soon) lost weight. At least something has been done to try and make your underdog car faster! If more weight is added people cry (myself included) UNSAFE! If weight is lowered it is the same cry. They could have just left everything alone and done nothing but that wouldn&#39;t be progress. My ITA car was built and needed ballast before the weight...then you add 115# to the 45 already bolted in...I had to put the seat back in a spare tire and a bunch more lead and dumbell weights. Now we can put ballast in a safer location so all should be well...

[lateapex911]

Good job Mike!

What continues to flat out dumbfound me is how someone is complaining that their car lost weight, and they really have little idea of how much they can...or more importantly, can not lose! I must not "get it" because to me it looks like complaining about the quality of a gift that was received. "A stainless Breitling?? NOT gold?? sheesh!"

And what I was impressed with, back when this all came down, is how little whining we got from the guys who had to bolt crap in their car to go slower!

On the surface, those guys would think that we were trying too hurt their finishing positions, and help those that got breaks....but we heard very little grumbling from them, indicating they "got" the big picture.

[JeffYoung]

Amen Mike, and thanks for the ideas. We have a 260z and that started us thinking as well. Thanks for that post, both for content and attitude.