Z-Car weight/ITS

[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. 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's not about my car. It's not about the picture of the 280Z on the dyno. It's not about the 280Z'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'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'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'll get past the business of my car and then we'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'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'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'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 'error' 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 'lighter, faster, safer' 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 'overbuilt' 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'm not sure I want it to when I consider all three parts of -'lighter,faster,safer'. And I definitely don'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'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'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'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'comin'. The older cars will be given some leeway to become more "improved" but that will require new creativity, money, and effort. And that'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'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'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 'lighter, faster, safer' 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 'overbuilt' 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's your call but that 'option' can't be factored in when minimum weights are being set.

I know my car could lose some weight but I'm not sure I want it to when I consider all three parts of -'lighter,faster,safer'. And I definitely don'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'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'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...

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'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'comin'. The older cars will be given some leeway to become more "improved" but that will require new creativity, money, and effort. And that'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 'old' and 'new' 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'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'comin'. It's all done - was done on Feb of 06. It's over, the foundation has been set for the future. If you have a car that can'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's been spun to "It's not about my car"....

Well, maybe I'm boiling it down too far, but after reading all the really good explanations, (and lots of them from guys what aren't even on the ITAC! (Nice job guys!)), I think that it sounds like backpedaling.

Your original case was that your car couln't make weight, so the process was flawed. Then it was discussed, and it seems that we don't know that your car can'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's about the process, and THAT'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't cited ONE car that can't get close to minimum. So really, where's the issue?

It's NOT about new cars vs old cars...thats BS, as the oldest car on the books hits the performance envelope spot on. It'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'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't determined that there are cars out there that can'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't look too heavy to me, nor did it seem to be outdated. It also didn'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'd like to make, then I'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't enough). No mounting hardware for either, fuel pump for both, gauge sending unit in the tank. I'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'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's the right setup? We're a pretty opinionated bunch here, but I think people will agree that there is no 'best' suspension - there will always be room for improvment and lack of ability to measure/agree on what'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't cross pollinate, but I think weight is the most integrated of the 4 items I'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't get an advantage over a linebacker, hence, make the change to allow more people to meet the parameter.

That's why this change makes me mad. A new 'wart' was added. But I will admit that I really can't say that the 300zx won't make weight and until I do, I'll be quiet.

Matt

[Joe Harlan]

A couple of points I'd like to make, then I'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't enough). No mounting hardware for either, fuel pump for both, gauge sending unit in the tank. I'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'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'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'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'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!

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'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.