Who can make weight?

[MMiskoe]

With all the stuff going on about SIR's I missed all the weight changes listed in the February Addendum. But perhaps now that some time has passed, people will be able to answer this better.

For those who got a drop in minimum weight, how many drivers beleive that they can get their cars down to the new weight?

Some of the drops are pretty big, I am curious if they can be reached w/o filling the roll cage tubes with hydrogen.

Matt

I've got a 65 pound balast box for sale

[lateapex911]

My car, an RX-7 in ITA has a new weight of 2280, which is a stretch for it, but will be possible for some, but only after an all out effort.

Still, I would rather be allowed an impossible weight, as it makes it easy at impount time, no worries about weight!

[nlevine]

I get to take my passenger seat out! I had to put the stock seat (motors and all) in to make my original weight. Losing 75 pounds is a good thing!

-noam

[Banzai240]

The ITAC would be interested to hear about those cars for which it would be IMPOSSIBLE to ever get within 50lbs or so of the listed weight (assuming a 180lbs driver, etc...)... We tried REALLY hard to make sure the recommendations would work, but we only have visibility to so many different makes/models... I'm sure we've overshot more than a few...

Only ALL OUT efforts need report, please... It does us no good to hear from the guy who can't make weight, but still has his stock tank, and oversized cage, etc...

Thanks,

[Knestis]

I'm looking forward to getting the new Golf on the scales. It will be pretty light, albeit with some extra tubes in the cage and some potentially heavy stuff in the rear suspension area. I'll sure let you know what we learn.

K

[MMiskoe]

I'm a little confused about where an all out effort will find 50 pounds or more from a prepped car. A fully developed motor or suspension will have almost nothing to do w/ what the car weighs. Considering the lack of allowances that offer weight savings, I don't see how further developement helps. I absolutely agree that w/ careful planning, you can shed a few pounds here & there, but what I am looking at are the cars that are 50+ pounds away from what they can get to.

Leaving cars w/ no room to move weight wise encourages cheating. Both all out cheating to make weight and cheating on what to utilize for safety gear (ie why carry that big multi-nozzle fire system when a tiny hand held meets the requirement and you're tyring to save weight). I doubt that the CRB or ITAC wants to be accused of encouraging people to only do the bare minimum in this area.

I know the ITAC asked around for info on weights a while back, I have a copy of some of the feedback that was gathered. What was shown was not nearly a complete list, but for the cars shown, in ITS, all of the cars that got weight added had feedback saying they were at best carried 30# of balast w/ a 180 pound driver (my car). Same car got 140 pounds removed. How does this help? The 944 was shown to be 35 pounds heavy to begin w/, it also got 140 pounds removed. ITA isn't much better, for those that lost weight, only 2 are w/in 50 pounds.

If the goal was to level the playing field then attainable results are needed. Dropping weights past where people can get to is no different than just arbitrarily deciding that a certain car, or groups of cars can simply start making more power. It appears that the playing field might be more level when viewed on paper, but that doesn't work if the methods used can be reached.


I checked a couple of things to see where improvements can be made. There are options on tubing. the 1 3/4 x .095 is stronger & lighter than the 1 1/2 x .120. But it is peanuts on the weight. If you could squeeze 100 lineal feet of tubing in the car, you'd save less than 10 pounds by going to the 1 3/4". I don't think most guys are going to start ripping out perfectly good cages to save 7 or 8 pounds.

I weighed an 8 gallon fuel cell (can, bladder, foam) w/ a pump and came up 1 pound heavier than the stock 19 gallon tank w/ pump & gauge sender. The tank didn't include the filler neck, but the cell didn't include any mounting framework or bulkhead so that's most likely a wash.



Any car can add balast, that's easy. A well developed car that has to carry balast will utilize that as an advantage by placing it where it does the most good.

And Jake - accepting a weight you can't make so you can not worry about coming in light? Last time I checked, this was a pasttime that rewarded well executing risk taking. Roses only go to the brave. You should have your heart in your throat when you get weighed but be proud to roll across the scales at the end of a session and be no more than half a gallon of fuel over.


Matt

[zracre]

Ok im curious since some on here know how the system works...a Miata 1.6 or 1.8 weighs 2205 or 2380...they make approximately 125 to 135 respectively...a CRX and integra weigh 2250 and 2595...IT hp are similar with the 1.6 but the integra may make 10 to 15 more hp...I simply dont get it...how can the integra be classed 215# to 290# more with FWD and same size brakes (i think the mazda may have slightly more area)? and the CRX 45# more with sohc and slightly larger brakes? The ITA car has no VTEC adder...Wheres the math? This is not a bitch session just looking for how the formula came up with that ... i tried a formula but it did not seem to put out the same numbers...i may have messed it up. I was never a math wiz ...

[Team SSR]

We built our 944 (late last year) to last years weight. We did a Driver's school in February, and have raced twice since then... so it's been tough to take the car apart and do an "all-out effort" on the 140 lb. weight removal. However, between each race we strive to remove more weight where we can. We've been scraping undercoating and removing some things that we probably should have removed when we built the car. Most of the weight that comes off easy at this point isn't in the right place. Currently we would need to add ballast if we had a 180lb. driver- which we don't (more like 225lbs).

[spnkzss]

Delete

Was talking about gross underweight instead of gross overweight.

[eMKay]

25lbs of ballast instead of 125. Works for me

[orlando_wrx]

Am currently in the middle of an "all-out effort". Will update very soon, as some say the previous weight for the AW11 MR2 was unobtainable.

[Jake]

No chance, no way, no how. The lowered MR2 weight is a pipe-dream and an insult. For full disclosure, I have an 87 MR2 which is slighly heavier than the older models and I weigh about 200lbs - but an ALL OUT effort might get me to 2370 which was last years ITA weight. The new 2270 weight is quickly convincing me to bag SCCA altogether and start running NASA/EMRA exclusively. You might as well make my spec weight 1500lbs and move me to ITS!

[Andy Bettencourt]

No chance, no way, no how. The lowered MR2 weight is a pipe-dream and an insult. For full disclosure, I have an 87 MR2 which is slighly heavier than the older models and I weigh about 200lbs - but an ALL OUT effort might get me to 2370 which was last years ITA weight. The new 2270 weight is quickly convincing me to bag SCCA altogether and start running NASA/EMRA exclusively. You might as well make my spec weight 1500lbs and move me to ITS! [/b]

So if you weighed 180lbs and had the lightest car with the lightest equipment - you think you could get to what weight? 2320? 2300?

And you call that an insult?

[tlyttle43]

Andy -

My ITA/IT7 Mazda would be very close to the new 2280 - IF I weighed 180 and I didn't run a cool suit system. I'm more like 255 and the cool suit is about 35 pounds. So that's 110 and right now I'm at 2414 as it last came off the track. And I haven't put on the late style aluminum bumpers. Plus most of my cage is 1.5x.120.

So for a 180 driver, it's definitely possible to meet 2280.

Tom Lyttle

[joeg]

My car can make weight...with a jockey or Danica Patrick driving!

[Jake]

So if you weighed 180lbs and had the lightest car with the lightest equipment - you think you could get to what weight? 2320? 2300?

And you call that an insult?
[/b]

I call it an insult because now my car looks better on paper compared to the top cars - but in reality there has been no change. Up 'till now I've had fun playing with the 'tweeners in ITA - mainly the RX7. But if the RX7 can benefit from the weight reduction and the MR2 gets left behind - being lap traffic is going to be a little less fun. Both NASA and EMRA (without any provication) have classed the MR2 below other ITA cars (including the RX7) based on it's perf. potential. The MR2 has been classed by the ITA for 15years, and the excuse that nobody has stepped up to built a real maxed out car is insufficient. Dropping weight from a car that only a few can get down to the current min weight is pointless.

If I started over, built an '85 with the minimum cage requirements, and lost 20lbs, 2320 empty is probably possible. But I would have to be an idoit to do this, because It would still get spanked by Integras that put down another 30hp to the wheels.

[lateapex911]

Well, it IS better on paper, AND in real life. Even if you do nothing, the top guys are adding lead. That said, I realize that the "gulf" (between the MR2 and the front of the pack) is probably still daunting.

What would your sloution be? Move them all to B?

Two issues come up...OK....3 actually.

1- At 2370, subtract the driver -180, and you have the car at 2190, which is below the 2200 cage spec break. So, we have to assume that there are cars out there that are built with small cages. Moving the car to B would likely add weight...making an unknown number of existing cars illegal. The CRB informed us in our discussions that there would be no line item allowances...that IF we moved cas, the cars would have to recage if they wanted to run.

2- Wheel width...moving the car to B requires procuring sets of new wheels. Maybe some guys have them, others have the $, others don't...who knows.

3 (bonus) Input to the ITAC regarding such a move was mixed from MR2 owners. It certainly wasn't clear that there was a majority vote in either direction.

So the move to B had some major hurdles. Remember, you're talking to a guy here (me) who is in the exact same boat, LOL. Your car has better torque, and better weight distribution and better brakes. Mine's better looking. We weigh within 10 lbs of each other, and both camps have those that say the new weight is impossible to hit, while others thing they can come close. Moving either car to B was made hugely problematic by the cage issue. In the end, the ITAC really had no easy answer for either car, and there was a ton of discussion about them.

So, what would you have done, if you were able to write the rules?

(Keep in mind the interrelationship between all the classes, and the need for them to be cohesive, as well as the limitations of all the cars in the affected classes)

[dickita15]

In the end, the ITAC really had no easy answer for either car, and there was a ton of discussion about them.

[/b]

Except classing these cars in both classes at different weights and find out what the market really wants.

[Jake]

What I would do? What Dick said, or just outright move the car to B. In fact there are few MR2's in the country that can even keep up with the top few ITB cars at the current weight.

Jake, to respond line item:

1. In my "built to the hilt" scenario I already assume that I'd build the minimum cage. There may only be one or two MR2's in the country that are using the smaller tubing - Norm Floyd is the only one I know of, and he just built that. IMHO, the larger cage tubing should be made mandetory for all cars, older cars could be grandfathered. The SCCA should NOT be encouraging people to build to the minimum.

2. 14x6 wheels are as cheap as dirt. Heck, the stock wheels are 14x5.5. In either case, that's a whole lot cheaper than selling my 87, buying an 85, or building a new cage if I have an 85. If someone wanted to make a competitive car - building an ITB MR2 is cheaper than trying to get down to an unrealistic weight.

3. True - but honestly there are so few people running these cars anymore there isn't much of a concensus. However, the car in ITB makes the car MUCH more attractive to build.

4. Same boat as RX7? Sort of. The biggie I see here is HP. I have seen REAL dyno charts of what an MR2 can muster legally. 108RWHP with VERY costly builds from expert builders. The 1.6L does not make much power with a legal IT build. Compare that to what an RX7 can do (135RWHP?) and I'll be racing the rookies and blocking the leaders when I get lapped.

[MMiskoe]

I am still curious about how a "full on effort" will pick up 50 pounds over a car that has done all of the allowed component removal. There just aren't that many items that you're allowed to change that have an ability to be built lighter. Last I checked I don't see that acid dipping is legal, cages are fixed. Do full on efforts have access to things like weight reducing paint and negative mass suspension parts that a lesser $$ effort would not tend to utilize?

I must be looking in the wrong cataloges when sourcing my parts.

Considering the ease, why can't cars have two classes to run in at different weights? Its a pretty simple thing to police considering prep rules are standard across all 4 classes. Then eventually you'll see a consensus drawn. It also has the benefit in some cases of higher turnouts when you can so easily have a dual class car. Look at some of the Miatas running in SSM, SM and ITA.

This could have saved an awful lot of message board space if the CRB had simply allowed an "either/or" clause for the BMW's when it came to ballast vrs restrictors. There's something too simple for this to allow it to happen.