Mark in Baltimore

Although weight parity is quite important, I'm really much more interested in getting rid of the rampant, overt cheating (ahem, gears, LWF) in what is supposed to be a fair racing venue. I've encountered a few club race cars that have made their ways in into the hands of DE guys and have been amazed at the mods that were added to the cars after the cars were campaigned in PCA but just before the cars were sold to the new owners.

gman1868

I agree, until the PCA starts performing tear-downs, people will continue to push the envelope.

However, regarding weight, I don't care how much they add, 150, 185, 200 it doesn't matter. All that matters to make the weight issue even across the board is to weigh the car with the driver.

I really don't understand the bellyaching over ballast. When you turn right moe often than left, having the extra ballast on the passenger is a benefit to handling on right-hand turns.

38D

Maybe if you drove a faster car, you'd understand. Lots of weight + lots of speed = going thru consumables fast. If I could get an extra day or two out of my pads & rotors, it would really help in my operating costs.

DrJupeman

Extra weight is always bad.

gman1868

OK, then leave the weights as they are and just change the rule so that the driver weight is included in the number. Problem solved

38D

That would be a very good way to handle it.

Larry Herman

Do it baby! The thought of being able to run my car at 2600 lbs makes me giddy.

JimB

OK, you're at 2600 and I'm down to 2730! Oh, I forgot. I'm in B.

Russ Murphy

LOL. I've got a black 3.4 liter if you need it.

analogmike

Works for me in E. Then just need 1/2 tank instead of a full tank and remove all ballast.

M758

Everything I hear from PCA national folks are stock classes were not formed around cost controls. Sad to say, but that is what I have always heard.

944 spec was based around cost control and given these were old cars it make the decision easy to allow stripped cars. The 330lbs or so lighter than stock these cars are has a nice impact on speed, at very a low cost factor.

My only concern is that if PCA changes the weights to be be "with driver" as they say then folks will be looking for 150 to 250lbs to remove in most cases. Some cars carry ballast, but why not allow interior removal (carpet seats, etc) as method to get there. I'd hate to allow this, but then say no you can't take anything out of the car to get to weight. 50lbs is one thing to "find", but 150 is alot to get from not removing anything.

Hey last year I proposed a prepared mod that allowed a 10% weight reduction in each car as prepared only mod. ie... otherwise stock class could run in prepared at 10% less and be allowed to remove interior and a/c to get there. They put the rules proposal in place, but remvoed the lines about interior and a/c removal and required all the normals stuff to stay in the thus not giving folks a legal way of getting that 10% out unless that 10% was ballast. Given most cars run 2200 to 3200lbs that 10% was 220 to 320lbs. Nobody runs THAT much ballast.

JimB

Being realistic, PCA is not going to allow that much of a reduction in weight. It sounds like they are open to a number other than 200. I think we should be behind a number that everyone can live with. I really like 150.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Jim

Mike Buck

But Jim, I know people that club race whom vary in weight from 100 to 250 lbs! Why do you like 150? Let me guess, you weigh more than 150, but less than 200. I am the same, but would vote to not include driver weights. The whole "over ballasted" issue needs to be addressed some other way.

Seems to me this whole driver weight thing is just a backdoor attempt by some to lower the weight of their own cars, all in the name of “fairness” and “safety”.


How about this idea.

If you have a car that is prepared within the limits of the rules, yet getting to the required weight means adding an unsafe amount of ballast, you’ll now have a chance to do something about it on a case-by-case basis.

Say you have 300lbs of ballast (or whatever number you feel is too much), you can take your car to the CR scrutineer for inspection. Prove to them that you haven’t done anything illegal or otherwise ‘gray’ in getting your car to this weight and they have the power to remove ballast to a more safe level. You justify your case by showing what you have done, and perhaps more importantly, what you haven’t done in terms of weight reducing modifications. One would assume the scruts would look more favorably on a stockish looking car that is seemingly underweight, rather than a car modded to the hilt.

Nader Fotouhi

Mike,

If I understand what you saying, I can replace the f/r bumperw with FG, replace winshield with lexan, and put in a LWF. Then if my 944S2 is less than 2932 allowed in F, I can argue that adding X lbs of balast to get me to that weight s dangerous and the scruts allow me to run less than X lbs which means I run at less than the minimum weight. It seems that this idea leaves too much in the scruts discression.

I am (and you probably are too) in the revesre situation, where our PCA stock cars are overweight for 44SC. I would love to be able to remove interior (including gutting the doors) and AC and see the current minimum weight include the driver's weight in the PCA stock class. This is what we do at 44Cup/SC and seems to work well.

This is also a little self-serving in my part, since it allows me the chioce of either running my car as either SP3 or F in PCA and not running an overweight car in 44SC.

Nader

Jeff Curtis

I would LOVE to see that rule adopted, but 200lbs would allow me to remove 14lbs...big deal...so of course I would like to see 150lbs - 180lbs so I don't have to bolt so much weight to the passenger floorboard!

The weight a "stock class" C2 has to run is ridiculous anyway, as I'm sure others are...the fact that I added a rollcage/fire system to my C2, and had heavy Recaro SRD seats for years...and STILL had to run with spare and about 25lbs of weight is ridiculous.

Just my two cents...will be interested in following that rule, no doubt.