Crossle 35F Weight Issue

I have a new to me Crossle 35F that I am getting set up for Monoposto guidelines to be Club Ford compliant. I just put the car on scales for the first time and find that it weighs 895 fully fueled and race ready. I need to get the car to 950 to meet minimums.

What advice can anyone offer as to how to add weight, where it should be placed and how to make it most secure? I do not have a fiberglass seat in the car but sit directly on the floor pan (with some foam and bead seat). I am thinking about making up a lead panel and bolting it to the floor pan under the battery area (under my knees). The car scales at 62% rear weight as it sits and has 50% L/R and 50% cross weight.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated!

Mike

mine had thin sheets of what looked like they would use in an xray shield for the techs.
it was ~ 1/16th thick and was flexible.
each sheet was cut to weigh 5 lbs and I layered them under bead seat.
really easy knowing the weight of each sheet.
came with the car so I don't know where to source them.
HTH
josh

heres a couple pics of what I did, custom cut two 1/2" thick steel plates, mounted to floor around battery, plus ran a big a** battery, (nice benefit of no recharging, and lots of cranking power) those two (grey) 1/2 plates were 21# each.

plates are surrounded by frame, plus mounted with bolts through pan, with large taper head recessed into pan, so flush on bottom of car

I think the real issue is: now that CFF cars are allowed vintage, they should run the rules that were allowed when the cars were "period correct". As far as my knowledge goes, CFF was always 1100# wet w/ driver, (1050# cortina) I don't understand the vintage rule of 950# w/o driver at all. Two problems, carrying around lots of ballast, it isn't the best idea in the world to add 6% to a cars weight in ballast, imho. Big advantage to the tiny lightweight driver, of which I'm not one, and as I look around the paddock at vintage events, I dont' see many people that would fit that category.

Not to hijack, but also CFF should be period correct, needless to say the biggest CFF series ever run was Beelers East/West Challenge. Those rules, were very consistent with what was run at the FF40th event for CFF. I would think if CF is fairly new to vintage, CF (not VFF) should be allowed the items and weights that were period correct, when CFF was a strong class in of itself- ie during the '90's.

That said, I completely understand the idea of keeping VFF much more pure, and 'as built' instead of 'as raced'.

Why not lobby your vintage group for the correct weight rule for CFF, 1100# wet w driver?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firesmith

on scales for the first time and find that it weighs 895 fully fueled and race ready. I need to get the car to 950 to meet minimums.

Mike

---

"fully fueled" is not correct for coming off the track, my understanding is 950# as raced, which means only the residual fuel after that session and/or race.

Thanks mblanc. That's what I have in mind for my lead weight. I was very surprised to see how much weight I needed to add. I also agree that many of the vintage drivers would not have much trouble making the 1100 pound car/driver requirement. I would be right there myself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh Pitt

mine had thin sheets of what looked like they would use in an xray shield for the techs.
it was ~ 1/16th thick and was flexible.
each sheet was cut to weigh 5 lbs and I layered them under bead seat.
really easy knowing the weight of each sheet.
came with the car so I don't know where to source them.
HTH
josh

---

You can find the lead sheet at some plumbing supply stores.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B001QU...&robot_redir=1

Marc, your thoughts on weight are right on the money, although in 20+ years of VFF, and first running a CF in Vintage events 8 years ago, I have never seen a set of scales (or any post race tech for that matter).

I still have posters of you and the EWC on the garage wall. How is Steve doing and where did the Lamont Cup end up? Is anyone ready for a reunion, because I've got a car now....:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Hirst

I have never seen a set of scales (or any post race tech for that matter).

---

That implies to Mike a totally different "solution" to the problem :confused:


Don't know what happened to that beautiful and huge Lamont Cup.
Steve did let me "store it" for a while, I should dig out those pics, had to take some with the car, but don't know it's current whereabouts.

Maybe the cup should make some random appearances, and be like the Stanley cup, and have its picture taken at the occasional odd racetrack or with a famous person.

A reunion, or EWC version 2.0 would be great,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mblanc

That implies to Mike a totally different "solution" to the problem :confused:

---

:redflag:Whoa whoa I am not implying Mike should ignore the rules, that is far from my intention.:thumbsdown:

A private email from another Apexer indicated that you are not the only one to have interpreted my comments that way. That is my fault for being too casual in my "no scales" comment.

That comment was meant to allude that the advantage of weight has traditionally been a non-issue in Vintage events regarding competitiveness, so much so it traditionally isn't even checked.

That may explain why it has not been changed in the past 10 years since it first appeared.

:greenflag:
Jonathan

Jonathan,
Regarding Steve, I saw him last month at a VSCDA event at Gingerman. He still had that lovely 2-color Lola. He said he had become unhappy with SCCA and hadn't raced since the 40th. Five years later he decided to try VSCDA.

Come on guys, back on topic. Glad I could provide the reunion space however!

Obviously, lower is better. Closer to the center of the wheelbase the better.

I would confirm my scales accuracy before taking a more permanent approach. If scales are good I'd add about 40# by going with a 1/8" steel floor pan welded in place. Adds stiffness, weight is not getting any lower, no replacing a pan every few seasons and increased safety.

I wouldn't go more than +40# with the pan to give yourself some wiggle room for future weight gain and/or other accessories. You don't want to be over.

I would build the lead weights into a sandwich configuration rather than a block so that you can add/subtract weight as needed.

Bolt to frame members not floor pan unless floor pan is substantial thickness. Use good quality bolts, larger washers and safety wire the nuts.

We aren't talking pounds and pounds, but if your rules permit cockpit adjustable front and rear bars that's something I'd do as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

If scales are good I'd add about 40# by going with a 1/8" steel floor pan welded in place. Adds stiffness, weight is not getting any lower, no replacing a pan every few seasons and increased safety.

---

Filed for reference.

Stating the obvious ....
Why would monoposto not adopt CF rules for CF cars.

Such a waste of time, money, and effort which then makes this driver 50+ lbs overweight by the rules the car normally would race under. Also makes it difficult to race with other groups where regular CF rules apply. Such desire would eliminate the options of heavy floors, sides, and other more permanent structure that would add weight..

As a person considering purchasing a CF, part of the attraction to the class is being able to run non-SCCA events. Thankyou for bringing this topic to light. Can somebody tell me which organizations have their CF minimum weight for car only? Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

Can somebody tell me which organizations have their CF minimum weight for car only? Thanks!

---

SVRA as well as every single vintage organization that follows Monoposto rules to the letter.

VARA is on the wrong coast for you, but their CF rule is 1100# with driver. Never saw a CF/FF car scaled other than at annual tech, where they also checked compression ratio, bore & stroke, cam profile and lift. After that, everybody was on the honor system.

Our EFF group in Arizona doesn't bring scales to the track. Mostly we self-tech, though ProAutoSports workers sometimes go around and check sticker compliance to keep the sponsors happy. Transponder and safety tests do happen, though in some cases only risking the diver they seem to figure it's your health rather than theirs. Thinks do get stickier if you look stupid in front of some pretty wise race control. Consensus if that if you want that little-bitty trophy enough to cheat for it you're welcome to it - we're all just doing the best we can with what he have (and only a few have enough to matter - wouldn't you know they tend to be the gentlemen more interested in helping the rest of of come up to a level letting them have more fun with us).

My advice - talk directly to the organizers and walk away when appropriate. I know of at least two sets of rules in Canadian F1600. Confusion over what rules applied lost me my championship points for the double event I ran. I was not heartbroken as long as they let me run the final race before disqualification. Significant weight changes are going to take you down development roads that put you at a real disadvantage to the regulars.

Organizers need to learn if they make entering the competition too difficult they're going to eventually watch numbers crash again.

I appreciate all the replies! While I am new to the vintage scene, I think that racing the older cars with the weights applied as when they were originally raced would be in keeping with the mantra of keeping the cars as close to "original" as possible. I am quite certain that a sixty pound hunk of lead was never part of my 35 year old Crossle's heritage. That said, I will proceed with making up a couple of plates that I can add to my floorpan in the area where the battery is located. Another member suggested the largest battery I could fit in as well. While that has merit too, I don't want to add another obstacle to a (relatively) quick exit from the vehicle should there be the need.

Thanks for your help ApexSpeeders!

Mike Tanner

Actually when these cars were new most of the time you had to run about 40lbs. of lead under the seat to make minimum weight. My FF days go clear back to the mid 70's and virtually every FF I ever owned had 40-60 lbs of lead under the seat (170lb driver). The rule always was 1100lbs car/driver rolled over the scales at the end of a race or qualifying.

As the car sits fully fueled at 895, with me in board fully outfitted, I am just about 1100 pounds. I would simply need to ballast for fuel loss during a race. I know that Monoposto is looking to impose a 25 pound "penalty" for CFF versus HFF, but I certainly would think it better overall to stipulate weight with driver rather than without. If that were the case I would be looking at 25 instead of 60 pounds. Finding a SAFE place for 60 pounds is the real issue.

The best and safest place to put a lead sheet is right under your butt. An 3/8" x 18" x 18" sheet weighs 49.98 lbs, or a .5" sheet weighs 66 lbs.

I wouldn't put it any another other place. My current F1000 has a 40lb sheet of lead in the same exact place.

Back in the day this is where most of the DB1's that were built had it or under the fuel cell.

By the way great choice on a FF to own, it would be my first choice for a CFF legal car. In the right hands still capable of running up front in SCCA Majors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghickman

The best and safest place to put a lead sheet is right under your butt....I wouldn't put it another other place.

---

I've been considering placing it forward to play with weight distribution , I'm at 60/40 (RF80 CFF), and would like to move a few % towards the front. Do you think under the driver/lower polar moment would still be best ?

In recent years, I have been using steel plates on the bottom of the car, .080 or .100 depending on the weight I need. On one car we have the steel plate from the dash hoop to the roll bar. We use 6 to 8 1/4" counter sunk bolts and a flexible adhesive between the plate and belly pan of the car.

Adding the steel plate to the bottom of the car has three advantages: steel is way cheaper than lead, it will protect the bottom of the car and the weight is as low as possible. I have done as much as 50 lbs of ballast this way. Also go easy with the adhesive or getting the plate off will be very difficult.

Thanks Steve, that's a great idea. I've also been looking for spaces to stuff ballast.

My current F1000 has a 3/16" thick steel pan covering the entire bellypan, it's bolted on. I needed a lot of ballast.

I ended up adding my weight in lead "plates" that I poured into a mould to size them to fit in between the frame rails just like in mblank's picture above (with the exception that my plates fit that area completely and the battery is located on top of the weight stack). I made three individual plates that each weigh 20 pounds. Stacked up they total around 3/4 inch.

Mike

If you have to use ballast, use ballast that does something. More batteries, more fuel, and thicker floorpans are the most common functional ballast choices.

The easy answer to this is that CF is and always has been a regional class. Therefore, every region can use whatever rules they want as long as they comply with the basic FF rules. Some rules allow any tires. Others specify tires. Some allow the Fit engine, aluminum head, etc., while others specify steel wheels. There is NO single set of rules for CF.

Larry Oliver

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry

The easy answer to this is that CF is and always has been a regional class. Therefore, every region can use whatever rules they want as long as they comply with the basic FF rules. Some rules allow any tires. Others specify tires. Some allow the Fit engine, aluminum head, etc., while others specify steel wheels. There is NO single set of rules for CF.

Larry Oliver

---

Yes, and choosing an archaic car-only weight rule is stupid. Glad I found out before I bought a car. There is lots of competition today for the competitor's entry dollars and organizations need to be smarter than that. Just look at all the unnecessary trouble and expense Mike is going through.

What's ballast?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firesmith

I have a new to me Crossle 35F that I am getting set up for Monoposto guidelines to be Club Ford compliant. I just put the car on scales for the first time and find that it weighs 895 fully fueled and race ready. I need to get the car to 950 to meet minimums.

Mike

---

Where did the 950 mininum weight come from. When the Crossle 35F was new, the SCCA, GCR minimum weight was 882 pounds for a Cortina engine and 930 for a Kent/Uprated engine. I know this factoid because I raced a Z10 at the 882 minimum weight with a Cortina engine.

My guess is that the rules for the organization that you are planning to run with were set to penalize cars of the vintage of your car.

In post #1 Mike said he wants to run Monoposto. (not SCCA)
Monoposto is just pure weird. :)

I always thought Monoposto was for guys to drive around slowly showing off the quality of the chrome on their A-arms.


SCCA uses a combined car/driver weight, as do most sanctioning bodies.

I've mounted lumps of lead the size/shape like a gold bullion bar in front of the battery. I also had a poured foam polyurethane seat with a space cut out in its bottom where I also attached another chunk of lead to the floorpan. I have at times mounted rectangles of ballast along the inside of the side panels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CF56

What's ballast?

---

Seriously...I tipped the scales at 1161 post race this past weekend...Disadvantage of being 6'3" 220 lbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

Yes, and choosing an archaic car-only weight rule is stupid. Glad I found out before I bought a car. There is lots of competition today for the competitor's entry dollars and organizations need to be smarter than that. Just look at all the unnecessary trouble and expense Mike is going through.

---

Conversely, these sanctioning bodies are smarter than that ^^^^ ;) They put a higher minimum weight on the car to remove incentive for gun drilled axles, aluminum diff carrier, super light wheels, etc. They see that as unnecessary trouble and expense.

Monoposto FF/CF racing is healthier than almost every SCCA division and region in existence. I'd say they are probably doing it right.

Being 190# pounds I'd prefer car/driver combined minimums as it doesn't put me at a disadvantage to the 130# jockey, but then not many of them are racing vintage ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

Conversely, these sanctioning bodies are smarter than that ^^^^ ;) They put a higher minimum weight on the car to remove incentive for gun drilled axles, aluminum diff carrier, super light wheels, etc. They see that as unnecessary trouble and expense.

Monoposto FF/CF racing is healthier than almost every SCCA division and region in existence. I'd say they are probably doing it right.

Being 190# pounds I'd prefer car/driver combined minimums as it doesn't put me at a disadvantage to the 130# jockey, but then not many of them are racing vintage ;)

---

I will choose Steve's theory that they're trying to penalize more recently allowed cars so they're not too much faster than the more traditional VFFs. Any time the minimum weight does not include the driver you know that some people have an advantage and others a disadvantage. I'm just surprised that people go along with it and don't put pressure on them to fix it.

I'm just glad I learned about it. I think CF is one of the more attractive classes out there. In my case, this would reduce the potential events I would choose from. Apparently, SVRA is doing well enough that they don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CF56

What's ballast?

---

The squishy thing that goes between the steering wheel and roll bar. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

I will choose Steve's theory that they're trying to penalize more recently allowed cars so they're not too much faster than the more traditional VFFs. Any time the minimum weight does not include the driver you know that some people have an advantage and others a disadvantage. I'm just surprised that people go along with it and don't put pressure on them to fix it.

---

That may be their incentive as it might produce closer / better quality racing.

However Monoposto Historic FFs are also weighed without driver and that minimum is 925.
So a 25# weight advantage to the Historics, not 50#+

No conspiracy or collusion against CF. The weight was set when CF had to run on a separate grid to VF.

Recent changes to allow them to share a grid did not include a change to the weight.

To this day, they are scored as a separate class with their own trophies, yet regularly run very closely on the track.

The dunlops have an equalizing effect that diminishes suspension advantages of the CF. Either you are comfortable driving at big slip angles or you are not....vintage and regional grids have their share of both drivers.

As for on track finishing order, we all lose to the FB cars so....