Battery question

[Team SSR]

Need to buy a new battery for the 944. How 'similar' does my new replacement battery need to be? Some of the gel 'automotive' batteries are very small.

[JoshS]

Instead of one of those racing batteries (Odyssey/Optima, for example), I got an AGM battery of the same group number as the original wet cell. Hard to believe there could be any concern about that.

[keycom]

Need to buy a new battery for the 944. How 'similar' does my new replacement battery need to be? Some of the gel 'automotive' batteries are very small.
[/b]

How is a gel battery even remotely "similar" to the wet cell that was O.E. on you car? :bash_1_:

However, this is a "grey area" that I have NO expert knowledge or experience regarding. :D

[shwah]

e. Any ignition system which utilizes the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted. Internal distributor components and distributor cap may be substituted. Crankfire ignition systems are prohibited unless fitted as original equipment. Any spark plugs and ignition wires may be used. Ignition timing is unrestricted. Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are of similar amp-hour capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location. Additional battery hold-down devices may be used, and are strongly recommended. Cars originally equipped with two (2) 6-volt batteries may replace them with one (1) 12-volt battery installed in either of the original battery locations.

This is why it is fine.

[keycom]

I stand corrected then :bash_1_: because I thought the reason one would chose a gel battery is for weight reduction.

Is there another reason?

[tom_sprecher]

Maybe because you'd be hard pressed to find a wet cell battery these days?

[shwah]

Gel batteries are much more durable in high vibration environments, and don't leak acid out when they get crunched....as much.

[Gary L]

Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are of similar amp-hour capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location.[/b]

IMO, this rule is so grey it's silly.

The word "similar" is just too subjective to be meaningful in this context. If the original battery weighed 34 pounds, at precisely what point do you consider the replacement dissimilar? 32 pounds? 28 pounds? How about 15 pounds? Or, if you happen to admire the stock location of your battery (from a ballasting perspective), how about 58 pounds? Even at the two extremes mentioned, I can say they are "similar", because both batteries have mass of the same order of magnitude. And if it's the same size and shape as the original, mounted in the standard location, and has "similar" amp-hour capacity, seems to me you're good to go.

Just out of curiosity... has anyone ever seen a protest written for battery weight?

[JohnRW]

Just out of curiosity... has anyone ever seen a protest written for battery weight?
[/b]

Please refer to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of "pornography".

I sense another thread descending into the "color, texture & flavor" abyss.

[dj10]

I stand corrected then :bash_1_: because I thought the reason one would chose a gel battery is for weight reduction.

Is there another reason? [/b]



Wouldn't a gel battery be less susceptible to explosion, fire and leakage? This sounds like a saftey factor that isn't being considered by the ITAC or CRB. This might be a good rule to change.

[AntonioGG]

From someone who bought a $90 Oddysey Battery for my SM (smaller than stock) and couldn't get myself to use it, I think my philosophy on this is that if I have to wonder if it's similar enough, it probably isn't. B)

[JoshS]

I recommend that people check out Deka batteries. They make AGM (Absorbed Glass Mat) batteries as direct-fit replacements for stock batteries (in some sizes). Same technology as an Optima, but in the stock form factor.

Deka automotive batteries (http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/default.aspx?pageid=454)

[mlytle]

just for reference in the bmw world of "similar" wet cell batteries that fit the stock battery hold downs..

stock bmw battery for e36 (made by douglas) = 42.6lbs 750cca
interstate mtp-91 replacement = 35.4lbs 700cca

[biovic]

I think that if it is a similar amp hour capacity +/- 25% (yes I know this a big range), then I would have not issues. I switched to an Odyssey last year in my Integra. One for some weight savings (30lb stock, ~15 lbs Odyssey). However, the main reason I switched is for saftey of the closed cell design, no leakage if upside down or gets crushed, and have experience to prove. I hit a barrier diagonally 3 years ago on the front bumper and knocked the battery loose, acid got everywhere. Last year I had a hard front impact, the Odyssey has a metal casing that got bent in 2 places, bent the tie down bracket, and the wires got cut = no leakage.
Victor

[JoshS]

How is something that's 50% of the weight of the original "similar weight"?

[mlytle]

How is something that's 50% of the weight of the original "similar weight"?
[/b]

it is not. i would say that one is not legal.

[tom91ita]

just as an fyi, i looked up the battery for my car at autozone:

http://www.autozone.com/servlet/UiBroker?U...UP%7C%7EBattery (http://www.autozone.com/servlet/UiBroker?UseCase=C001&UserAction=performSearch&Parameters=Auto+Store%7C%7EREGULAR+PARTS+LOOK+UP%7 C%7EBattery)

they are as follows with regards to warranty period in years, weight and price and cold cranking amps

A. 6, 25.7, $49.99, 410
B. 7, 28.1, $54.99, 425
C. 8, 27.7, $79.99, 500

since they are all listed as Group 51 replacements for my car, i would say that they are "similar"

[Z3_GoCar]

Yes, but are any of those the optima style gel-cell and should gel-cell's not be allowed ( de-facto ) when they provide a clear safety benefit because they happen to be lighter? I know that as an ITE car i'm allowed more lattitude, but I run an optima group 52 in my car as there's not an optima that matches the stock style battery. Basically, it's close in size and shape but the battery posts are on the left side of the battery instead of the right side. I run the optima for two reasons, first my battery is in the trunk and I don't want acid or it's resedue back there, and secondly the optima is susposed to be more tollerant of vibration. As long as it close in size shouldn't it be legal? Anyone check out the add in Sportcar for the Carbon fiber battery's? How are you going to keep some one with more money than brains from doing something like spending several hundred on an ultralight battery because they think it'll give them 0.0002 seconds per lap? My Tirerack window banner's good for like about 0.5 seconds per lap :lol: If it looks like a normal battery size for the car, why worry about it?

James

[JoshS]

Interesting argument ... but there are ways to be both safe and legal. You just have to do a little more research. Sure, the "big two" -- Odyssey and Optima -- might not make batteries in the stock size and weight, but there ARE other companies that use these same technologies that do. I have an AGM (same as Optima) battery in my Z3 Coupe, that's exactly the same size as stock (Group 48), using the stock hold-downs. It's a couple of pounds heavier than stock. It's made by Deka (link above).

The additional weight is fine for me since it's in the right place and I'm ballasting up to minimum anyway. But even if someone wasn't in that situation, the point is, that if you want a non-wet-cell battery that's actually legal, they can be found.

BTW, I was forced into this battery by the rules. My stock battery location is inside the passenger compartment (in the floor of the hatch). It's exposed once you remove the trunk carpeting. The rules require a wet-cell battery that's in the passenger compartment to be in a marine-type container. But I could not find any marine-type container that could both fit a stock-sized battery AND still fit into the stock location. I bought and returned SEVEN different containers. So, I needed to find something that wasn't a wet cell, yet was of "similar" size and weight to stock. Naturally, I started with the big two, but came up empty ... it took a little research, but they're out there!

[dickita15]

http://www.autozone.com/servlet/UiBroker?U...UP%7C%7EBattery (http://www.autozone.com/servlet/UiBroker?UseCase=C001&UserAction=performSearch&Parameters=Auto+Store%7C%7EREGULAR+PARTS+LOOK+UP%7 C%7EBattery)
[/b]

Well that is interesting. According to Autozone there are 7 or 8 I could use for my car. Wet cells range between 28.1 pounds and 44.8 pounds and the optima is 43.8 pounds. That is a pretty big spread.

[Gary L]

I repeat... IMO, this rule is so grey it's silly.

For those who haven't read it, the rule is quoted in post #4 above, so I won't bother to repeat it here. But what does it say... and not say?

- Weight - Must be similar. It is very obvious that you can buy a battery of just about any weight that suits you, even if it is the same form factor as the original (and that's not a requirement, BTW). There has to be a number here to be meaningful... "similar" doesn't hack it.

- Amp-hour capacity - Must be similar. Ditto.

- Appearance/Form - No limitation. As noted above, there is no requirement for the battery to even look "similar" to the original.

- Type - No limitation. It can be wet cell, dry cell, gel cell, nickel-metal-hydride, or what have you. Doesn't matter.

- Size - No limitation. The fact that the battery must be "...fitted in the standard location" might (I repeat might) make a larger battery impossible to fit in some cases. But smaller? You bet... it can be as small as you like, provided it meets the "similar" weight and amp-hour criteria, both of which which are meaningless from the start.

Silly rule.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Silly rule. [/b]

Re-write it and submit it for correction.

[Charlie Broring]

A request to make battery size free has just been submitted to the CRB. A few more such requests would be helpful.

Charlie Broring

[Andy Bettencourt]

Or write a rule so that it isn't grey yet fulfills the obvious intent to allow non-OEM batteries of OEM dimensions.

[ddewhurst]

Please don&#39;t read if you don&#39;t favor my posts. <_<

This battery rule is no different than the air duct/hose rule that was chanded two years ago. The rules writers steped on their dingis AGAIN. The 2000 ITCS rule was straight forward.

"Any battery of the same type, size, and voltage as the original may be used, provided it is fitted in the standard location."

Plaese don&#39;t anyone come across with one of the few specials like someone did in a previous post about a marine type container that don&#39;t fit. Some cars may need special attention & a note in thir log book.

[Charlie Broring]

My request is for any battery mounted in the stock location. I had been planing to request this for some time and already discussed it with Marshall Lytle. It&#39;s a seldom enforced and often violated rule. My favorite cheat is an empty "display battery" case with a lawn tractor battery mounted inside. I&#39;ve seen this done several times.

Charlie Broring

[Andy Bettencourt]

Please don&#39;t read if you don&#39;t favor my posts. <_<

This battery rule is no different than the air duct/hose rule that was chanded two years ago. The rules writers steped on their dingis AGAIN. The 2000 ITCS rule was straight forward.

"Any battery of the same type, size, and voltage as the original may be used, provided it is fitted in the standard location."

[/b]

What year did this change? I like this old wording.

[Gary L]

The battery rule was changed with the 2005 GCR.

I tend to agree with Charlie... just make the battery size and type free and get it over with. The current rule is almost there already, but the way it is written can obviously lead to a fair amount of confusion as to what is legal and what ain&#39;t.

The pre-2005 rule may have been better in some respects, but (and here is where Charlie and I would disagree) it legally allowed the "display" battery described above - notice the complete lack of requirements for weight or amp-hour capacity. I don&#39;t know for sure, but I&#39;d bet the 2005 rule change was an attempt to plug that hole. Unfortunately, the size and type requirements disappeared in the process, so it could be called a step backwards from a rule clarity standpoint.

FWIW, I bought (ironically between the 2004 and 2005 seasons) an ITB car that had a stock appearing 15 lb display/motorcycle battery setup. A truly stock battery, in the case of the 142E, is in the 35 lb neighborhood. I was flabbergasted when I saw the corner weight changes generated as I changed out the battery from the former to the latter. The Volvo has the battery weight cantilevered forward of the LF wheel, precisely the wrong place to add weight. (Unless you&#39;re running ovals excusively :D .)

[Andy Bettencourt]

The pre-2005 rule may have been better in some respects, but (and here is where Charlie and I would disagree) it legally allowed the "display" battery described above - notice the complete lack of requirements for weight or amp-hour capacity. I don&#39;t know for sure, but I&#39;d bet the 2005 rule change was an attempt to plug that hole. Unfortunately, the size and type requirements disappeared in the process, so it could be called a step backwards from a rule clarity standpoint.

[/b]

If the rules USED to say &#39;type, size, and voltage as the original&#39;, I fail to see how the &#39;display&#39; battery is legal. Does size not encompass weight? Does type not encompass amps? If we need this type of stuff spelled out, our rulebooks needs to grow 10-fold.

[Gary L]

If the rules USED to say &#39;type, size, and voltage as the original&#39;, I fail to see how the &#39;display&#39; battery is legal. Does size not encompass weight? Does type not encompass amps? If we need this type of stuff spelled out, our rulebooks needs to grow 10-fold.

[/b]

No. Size does not encompass weight, and type does not encompass amps. For proof, take a look at the weight and amperage spreads noted in the postings above, even for "stock" batteries.

Actually, this probably gets back to the same old argument - in Improved Touring, we don&#39;t need more rules, we need fewer. One could argue that if the battery rule weren&#39;t there at all, there would be less confusion about the allowance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No. Size does not encompass weight, and type does not encompass amps. For proof, take a look at the weight and amperage spreads noted in the postings above, even for "stock" batteries.

Actually, this probably gets back to the same old argument - in Improved Touring, we don&#39;t need more rules, we need fewer. One could argue that if the battery rule weren&#39;t there at all, there would be less confusion about the allowance.

[/b] I disagree. What does the info above have to do with the term &#39;size&#39; and &#39;type&#39;? From the Dictionary:

a : physical magnitude, extent, or bulk : relative or proportionate dimensions b : relative aggregate amount or number c : considerable proportions
e : one of a series of graduated measures especially of manufactured articles (as of clothing) conventionally identified by numbers or letters

If I told you your box of rocks had to be the same SIZE and TYPE as my box of rocks, by definition, it WOULD have to be dimentionally the same. If we eliminated the battery verbage alltogether, only the OEM battery would be allowed, no? YMMV. Seems simple to me.

[Gary L]

Got it. So.... all 205/50-15 tires weigh exactly the same, right? :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Got it. So.... all 205/50-15 tires weigh exactly the same, right? :D [/b] How is that applicable? What requirements are there that they HAVE to? &#39;Size&#39; in that respect - as you know - is generically used for width, aspect ratio and diameter. You can bet I know the weight of my tires.

We can agree to disagree but I stick by the literal definition of the word &#39;size&#39; if you are going to tell me that other rule wasn&#39;t good enough.

[bldn10]

"The pre-2005 rule may have been better in some respects, but (and here is where Charlie and I would disagree) it legally allowed the "display" battery described above - notice the complete lack of requirements for weight or amp-hour capacity. I don&#39;t know for sure, but I&#39;d bet the 2005 rule change was an attempt to plug that hole. Unfortunately, the size and type requirements disappeared in the process, so it could be called a step backwards from a rule clarity standpoint."



Well, I&#39;m going to suggest to you that the "battery" is the thing that stores the current, and if you have a smaller battery that stores all the current hidden inside a case from a battery of same "type, size, and voltage as the original" that itself stores nothing but the battery inside, it&#39;s the latter one that should be subject to the rule. And it is illegal. I doubt that the rule was changed to plug a nonexistent hole.



I suspect that either some people were having a hard time finding exact equivalent batteries or the CRB just wanted to give more purchase options w/i and among battery types, and the rule was eased up to allow for reasonably close (i.e. "similar") replacements. Indeed, the present rule expressly speaks of batteries "of alternate manufacture." It also replaces the criteria of "type, size, and voltage" w/ "amp-hour capacity and weight." To me this implies that "size" in the old rule was intended to encompass weight and not just spatial dimensions. While I think that there was NO intent to make alternate batteries performance-enhancing options, you guys are, of course,right that that does open the door to use that imprecision to advantage, as small as it may be.


I don&#39;t have a problem w/ the rule as it is but I would also not oppose opening it up despite the fact that it would be classic rules creep (same-similar-any) and another tiny step away from the Class Philosophy.

[tom_sprecher]

The rule does need to be clarified and size has absolutely nothing to do with weight unless you live in a world where everything has the same density. Obviously, that is not the case here on Earth or in battery cases as well.

Type may denote amperage, but I do not know what the definition of type is as in "Type 51" mentioned in an earlier post. But, I will shortly... <_<

Currrently, my RX7 came with an Optima battery that slightly overhangs the tray, could probably crank my F-250 6.0 diesel in a pinch and weighs a freakin&#39; ton. On the other hand, I can practically turn that rotary over with my bare hands. Something ain&#39;t right there...

[bldn10]

"The rule does need to be clarified and size has absolutely nothing to do with weight unless you live in a world where everything has the same density. Obviously, that is not the case here on Earth or in battery cases as well."



Webster: size = bigness



Coach #1: "My tight end is bigger than yours."



Coach #2: "How big is he?"



Coach #1: "6-5, 280."



Anyway, Tom, you should know that the SCCA is indeed an alternate universe. :D



But, really, I think it is stretching it to say that a rule that states: "Any battery of

the same type, size, and voltage as the original" was meant to open the door to ANY weight as long as it was the same type and voltage. Why would anyone care about spatial dimensions when it is weight that counts in racing? For mere appearance sake? I don&#39;t think so. It is a mistake to assume that all lawmakers, including if not especially those in Washington and Topeka, always use words in their most precise way. E.g. the fact that "size" may not connote weight in physics does not mean that it didn&#39;t in the old rule.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But, really, I think it is stretching it to say that a rule that states: "Any battery of the same type, size, and voltage as the original" was meant to open the door to ANY weight as long as it was the same type and voltage. Why would anyone care about spatial dimensions when it is weight that counts in racing? For mere appearance sake? I don&#39;t think so.
[/b]

Bingo!

[Gary L]

How is that applicable? What requirements are there that they HAVE to? &#39;Size&#39; in that respect - as you know - is generically used for width, aspect ratio and diameter. You can bet I know the weight of my tires.

We can agree to disagree but I stick by the literal definition of the word &#39;size&#39; if you are going to tell me that other rule wasn&#39;t good enough.
[/b]

How about a better example... how about a "size 24F" battery? 24F is a typical example of the BCI (Battery Council International) size specification for OEM-equivalent replacement batteries, that set of specifications being used by auto manufacturers and battery builders alike. AFAIK, the BCI spec for that battery makes no mention of a minimum weight, even though they go into great detail about size requirements. I&#39;d bet the European EN, German DIN, and Japanese JIS guidelines are the same way... no min weight spec.

Now if this doesn&#39;t spell out what we mean by battery "size" I don&#39;t know what will. We aren&#39;t talking rocks, we aren&#39;t talking tires, we aren&#39;t talking generic definitions, we&#39;re talking batteries. My point is, you can indeed have an OEM equivalent battery, same size as defined by battery and automobile builders, and have widely varying weights. Once more - take a look at the earlier posts in this thread for concrete (pun intended :D ) examples.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How about a better example... how about a "size 24F" battery? 24F is a typical example of the BCI (Battery Council International) size specification for OEM-equivalent replacement batteries, that set of specifications being used by auto manufacturers and battery builders alike. AFAIK, the BCI spec for that battery makes no mention of a minimum weight, even though they go into great detail about size requirements. I&#39;d bet the European EN, German DIN, and Japanese JIS guidelines are the same way... no min weight spec.

Now if this doesn&#39;t spell out what we mean by battery "size" I don&#39;t know what will. We aren&#39;t talking rocks, we aren&#39;t talking tires, we aren&#39;t talking generic definitions, we&#39;re talking batteries. My point is, you can indeed have an OEM equivalent battery, same size as defined by battery and automobile builders, and have widely varying weights. Once more - take a look at the earlier posts in this thread for concrete (pun intended :D ) examples.

[/b]

And I am with you 100%. I see it reasonable to use &#39;battery&#39; standards for &#39;type&#39;. However, for someone to say that you can put a mini battery inside a standard box and call it legal is beyond me. Using the same battery type like your 24F example is EXACTLY what the SCCA had in mind when they allowed somthing other than OEM units.

[Charlie Broring]

The best rule is no rule. The current rule is so vague as to be almost no rule. I&#39;ve never seen any effort to enforce even the older more restrictive rule. It doesn&#39;t cost any money or take much effort to fit the smallest cheapest lightest battery, so it&#39;s not really rule creep. Really small batteries will introduce reliability issues so if a competitor gets carried away with small and light then he will pay that price for it.

Worry about safety Worry about illegal motors. Don&#39;t waste time worrying about batteries.

Charlie Broring

[lateapex911]

The best rule is no rule. The current rule is so vague as to be almost no rule. I&#39;ve never seen any effort to enforce even the older more restrictive rule. It doesn&#39;t cost any money or take much effort to fit the smallest cheapest lightest battery, so it&#39;s not really rule creep. Really small batteries will introduce reliability issues so if a competitor gets carried away with small and light then he will pay that price for it.

Worry about safety Worry about illegal motors. Don&#39;t waste time worrying about batteries.

Charlie Broring [/b]

No.

When you change a rule that allows everyone a real or perceived performance increase...especially when the current rule is equal to nearly, if not all, then you are essentially requiring everyone to go out and replace what they&#39;ve got.

That&#39;s just dumb and uneccessary.

With regards to the "I&#39;ve seen this and that"...well, why not protest it?? There aren&#39;t many easier protests. Honestly, I am shocked sometimes that we have the balls to request a change of a rule for an entire nation of IT racers because we don&#39;t have the balls to just tell the other guy to do it right.

I just don&#39;t see this particualar rule as being that broken.

Of course, that&#39;s just my opinion.