FA weights

[bill gillespie]

Guys,

Would any of you mind giving an idea of the dry weight of your cars is? I agree with several others here that it may be time to look at weight adjustments that would enhance safety, reliability, and perhaps equal the competition a bit.

I'll start: Ralt/alloy block Cosworth: 1055# with Heavy BBS 3-piece wheels.

Regards,
Bill

[Stan Clayton]

Original bodywork, high-nose Ralt RT-41 with iron block Toyota 4age: 1065 lbs.

PS - That's with EFI, skid plate and heavy-assed BBS 15" wheels and tires.

[timos]

A Raven Toyota with FI, no sequential gearbox, has to carry around 75# of lead and a 175# driver to make minimum weight (1255+25). So that's about 1030#

Paul reminded me that we have a big honking steel skid plate too.

[Paul LeCain]

Our RT-41 with carbs and a Toyota is about #1040-1050, depending on tire brand. That includes a 17# steel skid plate.

Wheels are Tecnomagnesio 13".

[Garey Guzman]

DB4 with Rotary, unknown completely dry weight but subtracting the approximate driver weight, 1115 lbs for the car!!

I won something, I won something!!

[bill gillespie]

You folks must be on mg wheels, or my alloy block is the wrong kind of alloy...lol...

Any 008, or 014 guys here?....Rick Ross.....how about that speedy DB4 of yours?

Bill

[bill gillespie]

Kind of waiting for a DB4 with a Toyota or Cosworth, and 008 & 014, but it looks like with an average driver weight of 200 big ones, we could all knock off 25 lbs and get rid of some lead, extra fuel, etc. Inertia wise, and maintenance wise it should be a bit safer and cheaper.

what are your thoughts?

Bill

[Garey Guzman]

I don't have lead to remove and there seems to be very little that I could do to lighten my car. The driver isn't likely to get down to 130 lbs fully dressed! He's too old!

[campbell53]

I'd happily share my 008 weight but I don't have it yet. Kris Kaiser is still building it (I bought a disassembled spare car). I am exteremely interested in this thread (and the other regarding the future of FA). These were things on my mind prior to purchase. But after talking with various people I felt better about the future of the class and what I was getting myself into. I know the cars are expensive but I have considerable time in the ancient car design classes (SRF/FM... no disrespect to those owners...I learned a lot from those classes) but I'm relishing the opportunity to be a part of someting a bit more modern and complex. It looks like I'm getting my wish.

[Rick Ross]

Hi Bill,

I'll have to check my set-up data when I get home, but as I recall my car weighs in around 1040 pounds without driver or fuel. This is for a carbed DB4 Toyota with SSR wheels. Add a 180 pound driver, and I need about 2 gallons or so of fuel to make the 1230 minimum weight. I do not currently have any ballast in the car, so in my particular case a 25 pound min weight reduction would not work to my advantage......although I do completely understand why folks would like to get some of the ballast out of their cars.

[GregoryJ]

My 008.a is showing #1120 on the pad filled with oil and approx 2gal fuel. It's sitting on the old Yokohamas currently.

Any other 008 guys out there to tell me where I stand?

Regards,
GregoryJ

[Paul LeCain]

We thrashed this out in late 2005-early 2006.

This is the thread: http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15382

I did make a proposal to the CRB:

[Quote proposal:]

I propose that the SCCA reduce the minimum weight requirements for FA.

My suggestion is that we reduce the weights by 25-30 lbs. across the board.

If you've seen the F1 proposed rules for 2008, you'll notice that one of them reduces the minimum weight from 605 kg to 550 kg (1330 lb to 1212 lb). The reasons given are lower expense and greater safety.

The lower expense comes from not having to buy and transport around the world 55 kg per car of depleted uranium or tungsten. But the FIA goes on to say "Cars will also be safer without this extra weight." This is the point that interests me

Obviously, cars will stop, corner, and go better without the extra weight. Being able to accelerate more quickly, in any direction, will increase safety. These cars were not built to carry the weight the SCCA requires.

There should not be any significant cost associated with lowering the minimum weights. As far as I know, everyone is carrying ballast. In our car, a Ralt RT-41, with a 190 lb driver, we're carrying 35-40 lbs. We have carbs and no sequential transmission, so are at 1255 lb. minimum (1230 base + 25 lbs. for carbon tub). With fuel injection we carried about 60 lbs of lead.

Actually, costs 'should' go down. Tires, brakes, clutches, change gears, and final gears will last longer. Cars would require less fuel per race, etc

[End Quote]

Comments from SCCA members to the CRB were roughly equal pro and con. Nothing happened.

[bill gillespie]

Paul,
I remember , and supported your previous proposal, but mabe it is time for a re-think. Every point you make is well founded. Can you think of a way to lower the weights on composite tub cars without disadvantaging the RT4, DB4 guys? Although they currently get a break on skirt height also, I believe 1205 would be hard for them make...assuming they don't convert to sequential and FI.

Regards,
Bill

[Rennie Clayton]

You folks must be on mg wheels, or my alloy block is the wrong kind of alloy...lol...

Any 008, or 014 guys here?....Rick Ross.....how about that speedy DB4 of yours?

Bill

Bill,

Stan's quoted weight for our car was with the single piece 15" aluminum BBS wheels - you might as well be driving on locomotive wheels with those things. And by "original" bodywork, that also means stuff that's been repaired several times... and as we found out later, a nose with 1/2" of bondo throughout as "core material"...

I could definitely support a weight cut - our new bodywork will be lighter than the stock Ralt stuff, so we're just going to have to pile on more lead in undesirable places anyway.


Cheers,
Rennie

[PMPerformance]

I sweat it out every time at the scales as I'm usually 2 to 4 over after every race..A little close yes but not adding any extra that's for sure..

[bill gillespie]

Sorry we haven't met....what kind/spec /car?

Bill

[Rennie Clayton]

Sorry we haven't met....what kind/spec /car?

Bill

Paul runs a 008, IIRC.

[Rick Ross]

Interesting subject, and one that raises lots of questions. It seems to me that getting ballast out of the cars would enhance overall safety, as Paul has already pointed out. But this would be true for any class/car that is carrying ballast, not just FA. So is that sufficient reason to reduce the class minimum weights across the board? Should the SCCA look at all classes and as a matter of policy attempt to reduce the use of ballast? There are lots of other things we could probably do to enhance safety (such as anything that slows the cars down), but we choose not to do so for various reasons.

As for the older cars such as my DB4, there is no question that a reduction in minimum weights would not be to our advantage. I carry no ballast in my car and just barely make minimum weight. However, the reality is that many DB4's are racing the vintage circuit these days, and few people are trying to race them competitively in SCCA (Wilcox being the obvious exception). So it is reasonable to consider that an FA weight reduction might benefit the many at the expense of the few. For how many more years should the SCCA class rules be concerned with DB4 competitiveness? How would a serious DB4 racer like Wilcox feel if his competitors got a 25 pound weight reduction? Could the DB4 be given some type of advantage to offset a competitive weight "penalty"?

I guess this is just not a back and white subject for me, and I think that any changes in this area deserve serious consideration by all parties involved.