I don't think it has anything to do with how much I or anyone else weighs. As I understand it, if PCA adopts the "weigh with driver rule" then driver weight is removed as a variable and we'll all weigh our car's legal wieght as adjusted by some factor. If that factor is 0 lbs then we'll all be a little lighter but equal. If that factor is 300 lbs we'll all (most?) weigh a little more but still equal. Like many others I'd like the "factor" to be as small as possible even though it means my competitors will be lighter as well. I'm suggesting the factor be 150 lbs because Stewart B asked our opinion and I think that's about as low as they will consider. Just guessing.

The ballast issue is completely separate and frankly I think it's silly to suggest that we should get to reduce our weight because of how much ballast we carry. Weight has a huge impact on performance and I can't imagine any race series where weight is determined by how much ballast a car has in it. If we want to adjust based on performance, I'll buy that but not on ballast.
Jim

 

So it all boils down to this…
1. Heavier guys benefit from having their total weight be the same as the lighter weight guys.
2. If your weight is over the “default amount”, you take the difference out of the car.
3. If your weight is under the “default amount” you add the difference.
4. If you need to add weight, you can put it where you want it (within the rules) to help balance the car.

The question is “What should be the default weight?”

I am trim at 215 lbs with suit and helmet, so I would need to lose 65 lbs if the default is 150. 50 of that will be easy. I will need to search for the next 15, but it is doable. 180 would make it easier for me though.

Wouldn’t it be easier for a 140 lb guy (plus 10 for suite and helmet) to add 30 (for 180 lbs) than it would be for a 225 lb (plus 10) to lose 85 to be at the 150 lb change?

 

It is too bad that the "weighing with driver” thing is not a universally accepted(professional or amateur level) practice in the racing world. Otherwise, this rule change would be a no brainer.

 

Where in the racing world is not accepted?

 

IRL is the one I can think of off the top of my head.

 

Given the current requirement for all stock interior to be in place, I think 150lbs is too low. IMO, 180 is the lowest possible reasonable weight given the current rules.

My E class former Kelly Moss Firehawk S2 runs in E at 2,750lbs. It has a fiberglass hood, fiberglass nose, no AC, no rubber mat under the carpet, crank windows, no stereo, no sunroof, 2 Recaro fiberglass seats, and a basic 6 point cage. I've never weighed less than 2,750 with any gas in the car. I'm currently rebuilding the car with a more substantial cage that includes double door bars, a knee bar, and more triangulation than the old cage. This will add roughly another 25lbs.

At 150lbs as an arbitrary driver weight, I would need to remove over 90lbs. Needless to say, I'd rather see 200 as the number given the current rules.

As an alternative, I would propose using 175-180 and ALLOW the removal of interior carpet, trim, door windows, and AC components. This would allow those of us larger folks a better chance of getting down to that weight. For the few folks that race their street car, this removal should not be required, just allowed. A streetable car isn't usually going to be competitive in one of the bigger classes anyway.

For you little guys complaining about adding ballast, try looking at is as a free chance to add safety and comfort items. You can add NASCAR bars to both sides, reinforce your cage, run a cool suit with enough ice to keep you cool all day, drink bottles, multiple camcorders, data acq, etc! All without incurring a competitive disadvantage.... Keep your factory bumpers (which protect better than any fiberglass), AC, and stereo for those long waits on grid!

Personally, in addition to acknowledging that the vast majority of cars that are regularly raced are dedicated track cars (and therefore should be allowed to removed street interiors, etc), I think it's time to take a look at ALL classes and classifications rather than looking at making adjustments to particular cars. A weight based equalization could be used to adjust within classes. A weight adjustment/reclassification could also be used on those cars that are seemingly much lighter than their factory published weight.

Just another set of opinions... flame away!

Joe

 

I think the weight issue (w or w/o driver) is definately tied to ballast and not separate items. Most people I know have to add weight and in a bad crash would it stay in place? I M30 just did a Joey Hand this weekend at MO and I would not have wanted the ballast in there. I have not removed anything from my 968 and still have to add 100#. I vote for stock weight with the driver.

Mike

 

I don't get everyone's concern with ballast being a safety issue.

Using 1/2" Grade 8 hardware (the spec you should use for ballast) and conservative calculations (.400" minor dia using Proof Load) each bolt can load to over 15,000 lbs. without deformation. Ultimate tensile is 18,000 lbs.

Calculating based upon a 30 lb block of lead ballast it would take 502 G's to deform a Grade 8 bolt and 630 G's to snap it. It would take 350 G's to deform Grade 5 and 500 G's to snap Grade 5.

To be even more conservative you should be using two bolts per ballast block. That's 1260 G's to snap and 1004 G's to deform Grade 8 and 1000 G's to snap and 700 G's to deform Grade 5.

 

That's all well and good until somebody over-torques the bolt or fails to use the appropriate thread lubricant/threadlocker. But that never happens. Or what about the bolt pulling through the floor panel?

Removal of extraneous elements to get to "weight" was what I was getting at (I guess obliquely) in my post. Taking stuff out rather than putting ballast in is without a doubt the way to a better, safer, faster and funner car.

How's that cage coming Joe? Fun, ain't it?

 

I can't comment on poor installation techniques or not using large (very large) fender washers backing up the hardware. Also, the floor pan will flex and "give" under load and that will reduce the peak loads the hardware is seeing. Thus, it'll take an even bigger impact than outlined above to make the hardware fail.

Agreed that simplicity is better but I don't think we should shy away from rules requiring ballast because ballast is considered a "safety issue".

I feel for the guys who have totally stock cars but have to run ballast to make weight. In those cases clearly something is wrong with the published weights. Again, I go back to the fact that fuel is including in the PCNA weights that PCA adopted.

Personally I would rather have the option to lighten the car in the best way possible even if it requires adding ballast back in the passenger compartment. It's more favorable to meet weight this way from a handling perspective.