Printable View
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.
Can similar be 10 lbs. lighter?
http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1∂=ODY%2DPC680MJ&N=700+4 294769489+400109+4294895855+4294895849+4294777926+ 115&autoview=sku
No.
Only if your OEM specs and group size calls for a 225 CCA capacity. I'd say not.
But, on the other hand, using the proper group size for my 260Z, with the proper CCA rating, I found about a 9.2 lb difference from the heaviest to the lightest battery by comparing about nine different "brands". The reason I use the term "brands" is that clearly some of the batteries were OEMed from a battery company and re-labeled as "Pep Boys" "Advance" and so on. Incidentally these less expensive OEM units were the lighter batteries I found.
Do a bit of research with a scale and I bet you'll find a battery that is lightest of the legal ones available for your car.
Ron
I don’t believe that battery is legal either, however I when I needed a new battery I went to the Auto Palace web site and typed in 82 RX7 and found a spread of 20 pounds amongst the recommended batteries.
So, what is the official word? It seems like "similar" is way too nebulous. How is the OEM battery weight determined, since most OEM specs will not designate the weight?
Seems like this either needs to be removed, or the wording needs to reworked to make it clear exactly what is required. I would vote for removal, since we already have an overall weight limit.
There is no official word and certainly not on this website. The only way to get an official word is to have a protest reach the Court of Appeals and even that is imperfect.
What you can get is a reality check on you position. If you have position and you get support for rational people than you can feel better about pushing the envelope.
Yes, i know the process. However, that is not the direction i am going here.
It is obviously that the intent of the rule was that batteries are restricted to w/in a few pounds of the original battery. It is also fairly obvious that the wording of the rule and the reality of the stock specs make enforcement of this rule almost impossible. Thus, as i said, the rule should somehow be re-written, or dropped entirely. I vote for the latter.
I disagree. There are many rules that are not easily enforceable, we can't drop all of them. You can name 100 parts with no specs.
And it's a fallicy to say that "similar weight" is pointless because the car has a min weight. It's pretty clear the intent of the rules is to prevent us all from buying $250 batteries every year. If all we are going to do is weight the car and anything else goes, then things get expensive. I know, you don't have to buy the battery, but if you can, then you must. The rule has a purpose. Making it easier to shed weight simply by paying money is what the rules seeks to prevent. By that argument we'll all be running CF hoods next year.
It's also not true to say you can choose the lightest replacement battery. "...similar amp-hour capacity and weight..." That is an AND, not an OR.
I'm not usually a rule nanny, but the intent and goal of the rule seems clear. Don't make me spend more money just to save weight.
Dick...Do you know if the lighter batteries have less capacity?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickita15
Just wondering...in Ham Radio, the more the weight, the better the boat anchor.
Bruce
N1MZI:shrug:
There is a 10-15lb spread on battery weight for my car, but that is because the cars with AC came with much larger batteries, and they all come up in a search. I have never seen more than a 5# swing on the same capacity/size battery, and yes the el-cheapo brands are best for this IMO.
You are right, the rule is an AND. The rule applies to both the amp-hour and weight of the battery. We are focusing on the weight portion here (if you didn't notice). Which is the portion that is unenforceable (since there is no baseline).Quote:
Originally Posted by jumbojimbo
Your argument is that it is ok to have this unenforceable rule, because there are lots of others? It doesn't make any sense that an unenforceable rule is making you pay less money. If it is unenforceable, then people are already paying the money you are worrying about.
The rule should be made enforceable or dropped.
Exactly, the car has a minimum weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by jumbojimbo
You wish to get to minimum weight with a $250 battery from Pegasus. Bob wants to redesign his cage to lose 15 lbs. Robert wants to lose 15 lbs out of his fat ass. Folks have choices.
The car has a minimum weight. Seems to me that the rule of the battery remaining in the stock location would be enough.
My battery (stock) sits over the right rear tire. So, oddly enough, I do the opposite -- I look for a reasonably heavy battery.......
I think the "reasonably equivalent" weight rule probably should go given the wide sread of "stock" batteries and their weights.
The rule is not black and white, but the intent is clear to all of us. Maybe it could be written better, but I have full faith that the protest process will win out over a battery that weighs half of stock.
Seems we have bigger fish to fry than this one.
I'm going to protest your overly heavy stock battery.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffYoung
I actually wish we could be allowed free batteries, including relocation, for both safety and performance reasons. But I'm not EVEN going to open up that can of worms, officially...
So would I, but for completely selfish reasons like more weight back with my cool suit, and cleaner line to fresh air in my engine bay. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner!Quote:
Originally Posted by shwah
Rules enforcement is an entirely different arm of the Club, than is rules writing. Just like with the US legal system, actual Right and Wrong are defined by the judiciary (protest and appeals).
Safety, convenience, cost, etc. can all serve as rationale for replacing ANY part on our cars. Making it OK for the battery just moves us to the next opportunity for creep.
K
ahhh I see.
you're trying to make the car lighter to catch Billy right? lol
Maybe the club has some secret file of OEM battery weights and is just waiting to pounce when someone files a protest. I am definately not in favor of rules that are not clearly spelled out. Don't have a rule that says must be stock unless you can define what stock is, and then share that with us, so we can know that we are kosher. Makes an old Quality man like me stumble and mumble!
Mike
Mike, I agree. That's my problem with the rule. From the above posts, we seem to think we will all just "know" when someone has abused the rule. My guess is what we "know" will depend on which side of the protest line you are on.
The battery rule always ranked right up there with the washer bottle as one of the sillier ones we have left over from the dual purpose days (and this is from someone who has a battery in the trunk stock).
The battery rule is not silly at all. It is simple. Go to the auto parts store and buy the right battery for your car. Weigh a few if you want, but in almost all cases the cheapest one you find will be the lightest.
One more thing that we DON'T have to do to the cars to race them. Yay.
Said the guy with the battery in front of and above the left front tire on a fwd front heavy car.
I agree. It's a great rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by shwah
Unless your car is like mine, where the battery is in the passenger compartment (under the hatchback's floor, separated from the driver only by the stock carpeted plywood floor), in which case, scratch your head a few times to figure out how to be compliant with the rules.
Sure it's simple, until you see a stock battery on a competitor's car that you don't like and you spend 2-3 hours in arguing and a protest over what "reasonably equivalent" means.
Likewise, we all have different opinions of which rules are silly.
Josh - what rule would you be in violation of?
Looks like GCR 9.3.9 says you must use a battery box, but I don't see what is non-compliant about your car.
:dead_horse:
Well, the cradle that holds the stock battery isn't big enough for both the stock battery AND a box around it. Not to mention that you'd lose the ability to use the quite stout factory clamping methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by shwah
I ended up being forced to replace my perfectly good stock battery with a non wet-cell battery in the stock size (group 48). The box is only required for wet cells. It's about 5 lbs heavier but it's the only solution I could come up with. I'm fortunate that these things are available in my stock group number, that doesn't appear to be the case for very many cars.
Yes, simply rule. But what does mean, in terms of compliance and enforcement?
I jumped into this old thread, because i had people that were arguing that "similiar" meant very little (valid argument, since is not quantitative at all), and that even if it did, similar to what? There are no weight specs for stock batteries.
It means, if you think a competitor is out of compliance, protest them. Or not. Or have a friendly talk with them about the issue. We have exactly the same "problem" with every other part, with the allowance that we can use aftermarket bits...Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotMac
K
I keep seeing discussions on this topic referencing stock group size as a criteria (e.g., Josh's comment above)and I keep wondering why. As I recall, the rule used to require stock group size, but now all it says is "similar amp-hour capacity and weight." When they made that change to eliminate the "group" language, my interpretation is that it now means: automotive batteries with amp-hour ratings to similar to stock. Based on the discussion above, I don't think anyone could define what "similar weight" really means (since for starters, I 'm not sure anyone could tell definitively what "stock weight" is.) Or put another way, the rule is now (roughly) "no lawn tractor batteries".
Does anyone still think that a non-standard group size battery would be deemed illegal (assuming it has similar-to-stock amp-hour rating?)
Fair enough! I chose to stick with the same group size because A) I can use the factory clamping mechanisms, and B) because I can't imagine anyone would find it illegal. In my specific case, anything that would fit inside a plastic container in the stock location would have had to be quite a bit smaller (and therefore lighter) than the stock one.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomL
I too would be curious to know why the "group" language was stricken if in fact it used to be there.