SCCAForums.com

epcrx:

That is why I challenged anybody to "find an automotive based series".  Moto GP in my mind is not automotive based.  Lets not drag the 115#  jockeys into this :-)  Those guys get paid a lot of money to be within a few pounds of their competition.  Haven't seen a 225#  Moto GP rider yet... not to mention winning racers. 

-Chris 

Do you count the IRL as auto based?

Grand Am Cup/Rolex and ALMS do weight without driver. So what do ALMS and GAC have that Solo also has???? Multi drivers in the same car.

p.s. ALMS is no driver and no fuel for minimum weight.

All these are all valid reasons for not having total weights as a mimimum.

Except maybe the last one, #4.  A moving body in the car may help overcome scale stiction and possibly allow them to read more accurately :->  They aren't great typically, no matter what you do.

The one real reason for weight with driver is fairness. There is no doubt it is more fair.

However, is it worth it??  especially on 3000# +  cars?   

The SEB made it uniform in all of  Modified probably because almost all Mod classes were already that way. CM, BM, FM were always car+driver min weight and those  Mod classes that weren't  already car+driver involved similarly light cars like AM and DM.

Chuck Voboril

WYSIWYG:

marka:

Howdy,

As you might imagine, its not the first time the question has come up.

The things on the side of weighing without driver are:

1) easier to deal with if there are codrivers / people hopping into a car to finish runs, etc.

2) less worries about whether the ballast was in the car for the lighter guy on all his runs.

3) less worries about ballast being secured improperly (since it doesn't need to be easily removeable)

There might be some others as well that I'm forgetting.

Mark

4) the scales dont read properly when the car being weighed has moving parts

Bringing this back from the dead. Any more thoughts on this issue? I'm about to write to SEB on another issue and was thinking of throwing this in in a separate letter.

One of the main original reasons pointed out here for not doing weights with drivers was logistics. But after being at HPT at the last Nationals, my opinion is that if anything, the weigh-in would actually be simplified. Finish the last run, drive into the tech-shed, right onto the scales, and back to the paddocks. In and out... Instead of having to undo the harness, climbing out of the car, (of course chit-chat with co-driver/buddies about the last run, b!tch about lack of grip etc.), climb back in, start and flood the heat-soaked engine, try again and go...lol...

JSI,

I am for weighing with driver, but can poke two quick (respectfully, IMO, etc)holes in your thoery.

1)  Cars get weighed at many more events than just Nationals, so that makes the observations about ease of weighing at HPT irrelevant. 

2)  Two driver cars.  Your plan doesn't account for that.  THe second driver has to be there, and the original driver will have to unbelt, get out, etc.  If they are using ballast for one driver or another, then that will have to be there too. 

IMO, neither of these is unsurmountable problems, but they glared out at me.

 DaveW

Aww, duh... Sorry bout that. Being the 2nd driver, for some reason i was thinking that both drivers got weighed after their last run, which of course was not the case.

Ok, how did the weigh-in go for CP, do you think this would actually be an issue weighing both drivers? From what i've seen/heard it was not a problem in Mod classes, but maybe some Mod people would chime in... Personally i think we're worrying about a non-existant logistical issue.

jsi:

Aww, duh... Sorry bout that. Being the 2nd driver, for some reason i was thinking that both drivers got weighed after their last run, which of course was not the case.

Ok, how did the weigh-in go for CP, do you think this would actually be an issue weighing both drivers? From what i've seen/heard it was not a problem in Mod classes, but maybe some Mod people would chime in... Personally i think we're worrying about a non-existant logistical issue.

 

I don't think it would be an issue after the initial learning period.  The Mod guys do it.

DaveW

From the March Fastrack (in case you missed it):

Change Appendix A, Prepared Classes, to add “All listed weights are with driver.” Also add 200 lbs. to all weights
for cars in all Prepared classes. (ref. 07-147)

Write your letters - I wrote mine. 

I wrote mine last night.

No log number though. Good thing I CC'd Steve H.

Doug is in Georgia at the Dixie Tour, so I'd guess log numbers won't happen until next week.

DaveW

I have no problem with the present rules as written.....built & ballasted my car to suit, in fact (XP). The new proposal is just flat stupid.....it penalizes the

light folks & rewards the ..ah..not light. As written I would have to add more ballast or pork out.

To whom do I write about this. 

JP  you drive a 914 just like me. Where ever you run it won't be allowed to be competative.

Get over it....... I did.   With the money I have sunk in my car I could have bought something A LOT faster for less.

And I am giving up 40 pounds to the 200 pound driver allocation.  To get my car with me in it will cost me again too much money.

Maybe I should just spend the money at becoming a better driver....................

J P Stein:

I have no problem with the present rules as written.....built & ballasted my car to suit, in fact (XP). The new proposal is just flat stupid.....it penalizes the

light folks & rewards the ..ah..not light. As written I would have to add more ballast or pork out.

To whom do I write about this. 

 Send an email to seb@scca.com.  If you don't get a response acknowledging the email in 1 - 2 weeks, send again.  All the email for the SEB goes thru Doug Gill at the office in  Topeka and sometimes stuff falls thru the cracks.
 

J P Stein:

I have no problem with the present rules as written.....built & ballasted my car to suit, in fact (XP). The new proposal is just flat stupid.....it penalizes the

light folks & rewards the ..ah..not light. As written I would have to add more ballast or pork out.

To whom do I write about this. 

 I am not sure if you are being serious or just joking around, I am just wondering how the new rule would penalize the lighter drivers. Lets just say a driver weighs 150lbs. The car weighs right at minimum weight with the present rules so now the driver can add 50lbs of ballast where he needs it. Sounds like the lighter driver has an advantage to me. Personally I don't believe this rule will make much if any difference. The fast guys will still be fast and the slow guys like me will still be slow. I run in CP and weigh around 200lbs(a few lbs either way) so this rule has zero effect on me or my car setup.

J P Stein:

The new proposal is just flat stupid.....it penalizes the light folks & rewards the ..ah..not light. As written I would have to add more ballast or pork out.

From my perspective it removes the unfair advantage of the light and equalizes somewhat.  The light still have a bit of advantage in being able to place their ballast where it works the best, as opposed to wherever nature put it, but it is much better than penalizing people for being born large.

I was already genetically penalized by being born uncoordinated and unskilled, with poor reflexes.  I don't really need another penalty.

 And no, I am not fat.  I really can't lose any more weight than an additional 5 - 10 lbs, and that would put me close to unhealthy.

So I guess it is a matter of opinion, but I don't think it is "just flat stupid".
 

Why on earth, after spend a lot of time, money & effort getting the car light, would I want to add even more ballast? I ran E Mod at the Packwood NT even tho I was about 175lbs over weight.....couldn't make XP weight and I can't get enuff out to get close to E Mod.  So I was about 50lbs light for XP. Now it's a good fit for the car even with the ballast. So, let's change the effin' rules.

 
Why 200 lbs?  Why not the weight of your average American male.....it seems that this is "sensitivity" run amok.

 
Little wonder the Prepared & Mod classes are in trouble. It takes a lot of work to build a car for these classes. Mucking about with the rules is not going to help. There are enough of them spread hither & yon throughout the rule book at present.

Stupid is as stupid does. 

J P Stein:

Why on earth, after spend a lot of time, money & effort getting the car light, would I want to add even more ballast? I ran E Mod at the Packwood NT even tho I was about 175lbs over weight.....couldn't make XP weight and I can't get enuff out to get close to E Mod.  So I was about 50lbs light for XP. Now it's a good fit for the car even with the ballast. So, let's change the effin' rules.

 
Why 200 lbs?  Why not the weight of your average American male.....it seems that this is "sensitivity" run amok.

 
Little wonder the Prepared & Mod classes are in trouble. It takes a lot of work to build a car for these classes. Mucking about with the rules is not going to help. There are enough of them spread hither & yon throughout the rule book at present.

Stupid is as stupid does. 

 I think you answered your own question.  If your car, with everything that can be reasonably done to it, is 50# light for XP, and we add 150# to the minimum weights - with driver, and you are, say 225#, you pull out the ballast you have and are still 25# overweight.  Why 200?  I don't know - suggest something else.  I'm 225# and I have 135# of ballast in my DP car to make weight now.  If the rule goes through as written, I can pull out 25# and be lighter than I was before.  If it goes through as current + 150, I can pull out 75# and be lighter than I was before.  If it goes through at current + 0, I'll be overweight by 90#, and much lighter than I was before.  Any number you put in there, if two different drivers can end up within 10# or so of each other while in the car, it is more equal than it was before.  Suggest a number!

It does suck to work hard to get your car as light as you can and then add weight back in.  It sucks even more when without that weight you are already heavier than the car and driver sitting next to you in grid. 

BTW, I googled out of curiousity, and according to Judd Biasiotto Ph.D., "The average American man is 5 feet, 10.3″ tall, and weighs 187 Ibs." So maybe it should be current weights + 190 (or + 185)?  I'm OK with that.

I don't think this change will make much of a difference in my finishing position.  I'm a solid mid-pack guy and would be pleased as punch to trophy at Nationals.  I do think this is a good rule for the leaders, though.  How much griping went on about Danica doing well and attributing it to the fact she was only 90#?  If the weights are the same, you know for sure who drove the best.  This takes one more inequality out of the picture.  And that's not "stupid". 

J P Stein:

Why on earth, after spend a lot of time, money & effort getting the car light, would I want to add even more ballast? I ran E Mod at the Packwood NT even tho I was about 175lbs over weight.....couldn't make XP weight and I can't get enuff out to get close to E Mod.  So I was about 50lbs light for XP. Now it's a good fit for the car even with the ballast. So, let's change the effin' rules.

Why 200 lbs?  Why not the weight of your average American male.....it seems that this is "sensitivity" run amok.

Little wonder the Prepared & Mod classes are in trouble. It takes a lot of work to build a car for these classes. Mucking about with the rules is not going to help. There are enough of them spread hither & yon throughout the rule book at present.

Stupid is as stupid does. 

 Well, I would rather have a car that is under the minimum weight. I am sure you spent a lot of money and time making your car light but you still have the option to add ballast and you can put that where it needs to be. That is an option that is not available to a more robust driver. I just don't see where being under minimum weight without ballast is a disadvantage.

 I have a feeling that 200lbs is pretty close to the average for an American male. I have very few friends under the 200lb mark and none of them are overweight.

 Everytime a rule is changed someone gets screwed. I agree, this rule change would be wrong.

I think where this is going to be an issue is with co-drivers who aren't fairly equal in weight.  I would be happy with the rule as written, as I am right around that 200 mark (not that I want to stay there).  But with a co-driver at 170 (damn you Lloyd), I will be running 30 lbs heavier in the car than last year, unless I want to yank weight between heats. 
 

THAT being said, I will have to add about 80 or 90 lbs for my ladies drivers because THEY are so scrawny...perhaps it is time to fatten them up, although I hear Lloyd has done that for Kim (at least for 9 months )

Zauskycop:

 ......although I hear Lloyd has done that for Kim (at least for 9 months )

Interesting approach to ballast.....

This proposal seems to have generated a lot of discussion.  Make sure to send in your letters!

-Steve
(new guy on the PAC)

J P Stein:

I googled out of curiousity, and according to Judd Biasiotto Ph.D., "The average American man is 5 feet, 10.3″ tall, and weighs 187 Ibs." So maybe it should be current weights + 190 (or + 185)?  I'm OK with that.

OK, I hate the BMI as much as the next person, but given the average the BMI for that person is 27, 2 over what is considered "healthy". 175 for 5'10" sits right at the max, 25. 200 lbs is verging on obese for someone of that height.

Part of competition is going beyond average, yep I know we should raise it up to the 200 lbs if that is the case