Adding Weight - Suggestions?

[Bubblecar]

Before I make any brash decisions about where I will or will not run this year - I need to get some idea of what is and what is not actually possible.

I have a 2004 Nissan Sentra Spec-v - that weighs in at about 2,300 lbs empty. To run the car in Touring Class - (on the proper size tires) I will need an empty weight of 2,717.

So - is it possible to add 400 lbs back into a car - safely. And where can the weight be put, so as not to be a lawn dart. I would normally consider the passenger compartment floor - but that area will be reserved for up to 200 labs of reward weight (hopefully I get some).

[rmicroys]

Nick.

I figure this is a great opportunity to flat bottom the car, with a sheet of 1/4" steel plate. The lower the better. I wouldn't bolt 400# inside my car.

Seriously, with the appropriate backing, hardware, bolted through the floor, between the axles I'm sure a large plate can be fastened safely under the car. It would then double up as a huge jacking point. Just think... your engine/transmission is really only held in by say, 4 bolts in double shear, give or take a few - that's got to weigh an easy 400 lbs. So mount up a good plate with 10-12 v.large diameter grade 8 bolts, with the right backing plates inside the car and you're gravy. Then you could also investigate the shear strength between a Gr.5 and Gr.8 bolt to make sure that you get the best bolt for the application. My bet is that a Gr.8 bolt is still the best choice. No need to go any higher.

[Lude]

You could make some Lead bumpers front and back, say 200Lbs each.

Anything to help a fellow competitor out .....

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by Lude
Anything to help a fellow competitor out .....
So how are you going to make weight - have your brother in the trunk :D (or maybe Ken :eek: )


Seriously though - how much do you have to weigh?

[Lude]

Nick,

You're on to us. I've decided to take Ken along during the races. No rule against having passengers during a race.

Our race weight has to be a little over yours. We start the year with about the same weight as we ended last year, rewards weights and all. So take it easy on us slow guys out there.

You may want to see Ronny about welding up brackets under your car for balast. I'd just hate to have heavy things bolted inside the car.

[slucas]

I don't have a rule book in front of me but it used to be a rule that all ballast must be carried inside the car. That negates bolting under the floor. But...all ballast needs to be bolted into the car and there is no washer size listed anywhere ,so use a really,really big washer under the car.My Mini had four such washers and they addied up to 130lbs.Yes, it was stretching (torturing?) the rule,but the equal size ballest on the inside never pulled through the floor.

[rmicroys]

But it's not ballast... it's my flat bottom ;)

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by rmicroys
I figure this is a great opportunity to flat bottom the car, with a sheet of 1/4" steel plate. The lower the better. I wouldn't bolt 400# inside my car.
Actually Ken Shaw's ice racer is done up like that. Makes for a fine skid plate and keeps the weight low. . . But that's ice racing - not touring car!:(

[rmicroys]

Didn't the Stealth B6 in the CGTCC have to add a couple hundred lbs to their car? I don't remember how the accomplished it - but I thought that they did the same thing.

[jr racing]

Nick why don't you run the car in gt? It would be such a shame to see a beautiful car like yours chopped up to accomidate that amount of weight.

[rainman]

There's gotta be places within the body cavities (not yours Nick!) to safely stuff lead or other such materials. Can this/ has this been done before?

[Gunter Schmidt]

Here is a link for a material weight calculator.

http://www.principalmetals.com/utilities/primecalculator.htm

1/2 inch by 48 by 48 is 326 lbs
add 8 piecse of 1/2 inch by 6 X6 is an other 40 lbs add the hardware and you are close to 400 lbs.

The big plate (Flatbottom) on the outside the small plates on the inside is perfectly OK.

Just like the Stealth in CGTCC

Gunter

[Crusher45]

Originally posted by Bubblecar
So how are you going to make weight - have your brother in the trunk :D (or maybe Ken :eek: )


No matter how much you pay me I will not sit in the back of your car Nick. Sorry just ain't happening.

:D :D :D

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Gunter Schmidt
Just like the Stealth in CGTCC

Gunter

And Gunter, wasn't the Stealth actually FASTER when it had the weight? Although a couple times I remember couldn't keep a set of tires on the car for the hour long race.

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by rmicroys
. . . wasn't the Stealth actually FASTER when it had the weight?
Yea Right:mad:

I hope you're not even trying to suggest that adding 400 lbs to a 2,300 lb touring car - might actually make it faster ?

No matter what did or didn't happen with the Stealth - any weight like this (unless it's a 400 lb turbo:D) will dramatically reduce performance and lap times and for that matter will drive me and several others out of the Ontario touring class. I thought it was the intention this year to bring more people in?

I guess that's one way to make for closer races.

[Lude]

Nick,

It's already been mentioned, if weight is a factor just register the car as a GT car. If the engine stays together you should be able to get your car down to 1:33's. Consider last years GT champion was averaging 1:36's you'd do well.

We're even considering registering one car as a touring and one as a GT. Just to see how far we can develope the preludes. Taking out about 4-500 lbs should drop the GT version down to the 32-3's for us. First we have to see how much the 05 version of our car comes in weight wise before the ballast.

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by Lude
Nick,

It's already been mentioned, if weight is a factor just register the car as a GT car. If the engine stays together you should be able to get your car down to 1:33's. Consider last years GT champion was averaging 1:36's you'd do well.

You're probably right - check my new signature below.

Thanks :D

[rmicroys]

Not all cars are ever going to be competitive in every series. I know; been there, done it, and still have the car. So your car may not be able to be made competitive for this series without spending more money that you want to. Welcome the club.

With respect to bringing more people in? I think that this year it could. SGT has be re-introduced - so people can go stinky fast... but honestly, I doubt that it will bring in that many faster cars. It does try to spread out the classes a bit - but I wonder if SGT will still even have more than 4 regulars if that many. Even when the SGT tire rule was 'free' there weren't more than 2-3 regulars in the class. Maybe this year the owners of those rocketships can prove us wrong. At least now people like Jim Fearn can race their unique cars like his V8 RX-7. Sure everybody still have to be on Toyos, minor detail.

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by rmicroys
Not all cars are ever going to be competitive in every series. I know; been there, done it, and still have the car. So your car may not be able to be made competitive for this series without spending more money that you want to. Welcome the club.

True enough - but my 2003 Sentra was built for THIS series. And I have watched for two years as they have changed rules every season - when I'm still not sure what was wrong with them.

I think rules have to be allowed to stay the same for at least a couple of years in a row before your can understand their impact.

[Dave]

Personally, I thought the idea with the TGTC was for it be like a mini Speed World Challenge. That's how JohnB described it to me when the series was announced. So why are obvious Touring cars like Nick's Sentra being forced into GT if they want to run at a reasonable Touring car weight? I'm sorry, but saying "just run in GT" seems like a cop out to me. Nick has a valid concern and it's one I share. I've personally undertaken another engine swap, this time to install a 1.6L engine in my Civic so that I can avoid having to add 300 lbs of ballast that would have been required with my 1.8L engine in the car. This has cost me time and $, but I just couldn't bring myself to add weight to the car. That would ruin what makes my little hatchback fun, namely its light and nimble handling.

There seems to be a lot of potential Touring car customers seriously considering running in Quebec this year because of the weight issue. With Touring being the biggest class in the TGTC, it would seem to me to make good business sense to set more reasonable race weights for this class (perhaps even align them with the FAQ Touring series so that cross-border competition is made easier) and keep the bulk of your customers happy, rather than worrying about attracting one or two SGT competitors or keeping old machinery competitive.

I can only assume that the very high race weights for a lot of newer Touring cars is a result of trying to allow older machinery a fighting chance. I wonder though, do we really want to alienate the owners of the newer cars (which are surely the more marketable ones from a media and sponsor interest standpoint) and end up with a Touring class filled with older cars?

[rmicroys]

The biggest challenge that CASC-OR and the organizing clubs face is technically policing any series with rules. ALL of our series are designed to not have technical regulations on cars, their drivetrains, engines, etc. So how does one make a series 'fair' for most of the cars? This discussion we have been to before. You can't do it.

As can be seen, you need about 5 classes to accommodate all of the cars in the region (as can be seen as to what the OCC has become now)

Last year, TGT tried to do it with 2. Of course that cannot accommodate everybody either. Too many people complained about something. Slow guys like me complaining that they are allowed to participate, but don't have a class... fast guys complain that they can't run in the series without spending huge amounts on rims/tires for their Corvettes/Porsches.

So this year, the series looks like it is going to accommodate the faster guys a bit better, and the spread in Touring that it attempts to cover is too big. I know that Gunter tries very hard to give the little guy a chance with the class structure - and I applaud his efforts. Then there are always cars that just can't fit.

The SE-R has to weigh 2500# w/ driver for Speed WC. So I see why you got your car down to 2300#. Unfortunately the calculator for our series is not biased that way - it's rather generic and blind - I guess in an effort to make some other vehicles competitive for the 'monster' touring class. It works for some cases, maybe not so for all. Really we didn't need a 'faster' class this year - we needed a slower class. Buy doing what they did, the top of the T class has effectively been pushed (and in some cases forced) in to GT. Thus maybe taking a few cars out of the top of T and placing them in GT. This will spread out the field a bit and may give the people driving doorstops a vision of the podium.

The problem with only trying to equalize the field by weight alone, is that it can't be done. Other measures are needed, and then people will start to cheat. Restrictors are easy - but again, we don't have the volunteers/resources needed to police things like restrictors, bore/stroke etc.

Again, I'll echo Gunter's sentiment, you want a class for each car... okay! Why not ... 35 classes, everybody gets a 1st place trophy. I gave up caring last year.

[Dave]

Let me preface this post by stating that what I'm about to write is out of genuine concern for the TGTC and its competitors and out of a genuine desire to better understand how the TGTC rules have evolved into their '05 form. Let me also say I have a great deal of respect for Gunter and anyone else involved with setting the TGTC rules, since I know firsthand -- having been the Chair of the Solo 1 rulebook committee for the last 3 years -- how much time and energy it takes. I honestly just want to understand the TGTC rules and the process under which they've been developed as a way of understanding who the target audience is and what the goals of this series are.

Here's what I'd really like to know -- why have race weights been steadily escalating over the last 3 seasons of TGTC? I haven't seen much if any explanation for this beyond overly general statements about balancing the competition. If balancing the competition is the goal, what cars are we trying to make more competitive, exactly? Do the cars having to add weight outnumber those allowed to stand firm or reduce weight? Which direction is this shift going in and which cars are benefiting, exactly?

What I'd really like to see are the race weights for all the cars that have competed in TGTC the last two seasons and what their projected '05 race weight will be. Based on my conversations with a number of TGTC competitors my impression is that the vast majority of cars are being forced to add a considerable amount of weight to their car each season. Why? So a few older cars can be more competitive? If so, is this really in the best interest of the series as a whole, particularly if teams are leaving the series as a result?

And what about from a 'fun and affordable' perspective? Weight adds costs, since a heavier car is harder on tires and brakes not to mention the added stress on the chassis. And who here enjoys driving a heavier car more than a lighter one? Who wants to drive their 'Touring GT' or 'race' car at or even above the factory curb weight? I'm not saying cars need to be allowed to run 500 lbs below their factory curb weight, but they should at least be allowed to do some basic lightening sinc this is an affordable and easy way to make a car faster and more fun to drive.

There's a lot of opinion in this thread, including my own, but what seems to be sorely missing is a proper analysis of the race weight escalation that appears to be continuing in '05. Maybe one has already been done and I'm just not aware of it, but I would love to see some hard numbers regarding race weights for '03, '04 and '05 and some sound explanation as to why the increased weights represents an improvement to the series and for the majority of competitors in it.

I'll use my car as the first example. Please add your car to the list if you'd like to see this sort of data as well.

'93 Honda Civic with 1.6L VTEC engine, Type R brakes, and 225/50-15's:
- Minimum race weight for '04 would have been approximately 2227 lbs with driver.
- Minimum race weight for '05 is 2531 lbs with driver

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Dave
Here's what I'd really like to know -- why have race weights been steadily escalating over the last 3 seasons of TGTC? I haven't seen much if any explanation for this beyond overly general statements about balancing the competition. If balancing the competition is the goal, what cars are we trying to make more competitive, exactly? Do the cars having to add weight outnumber those allowed to stand firm or reduce weight? Which direction is this shift going in and which cars are benefiting, exactly?

Well... the formula is blind. It doesn't care what kind of car it is. My guess on who the rules benefit... Single cam, four cylinder, 8 valve cars with tiny single pot calipers and weeenie little rotors.

Now is the single formula the be end all answer? Can't be. Nope, it's the best solution we have to even the field. Only if it's a no holds barred GT class is it an ultimate factor. (ala true GT, tube frame, not even remotely resembling stock except for profile and shape)

What I'd really like to see are the race weights for all the cars that have competed in TGTC the last two seasons and what their projected '05 race weight will be. Based on my conversations with a number of TGTC competitors my impression is that the vast majority of cars are being forced to add a considerable amount of weight to their car each season. Why? So a few older cars can be more competitive? If so, is this really in the best interest of the series as a whole, particularly if teams are leaving the series as a result?

Dunno who... as far as I know, all the Volkswagens get lighter each year. (at least mine does ;) )

And what about from a 'fun and affordable' perspective? Weight adds costs, since a heavier car is harder on tires and brakes not to mention the added stress on the chassis. And who here enjoys driving a heavier car more than a lighter one? Who wants to drive their 'Touring GT' or 'race' car at or even above the factory curb weight? I'm not saying cars need to be allowed to run 500 lbs below their factory curb weight, but they should at least be allowed to do some basic lightening sinc this is an affordable and easy way to make a car faster and more fun to drive.

For sedans, I don't think that the TGT was ever meant to be 'fun and affordable'. That's what GTC and GTD is for. At least that's what people keep telling me ;)

Seriously though, TGT is a good series turn out wise, not counting ALMS has about 24 cars per race average last year... the sprints averaged 33 cars per race. The numbers are awful, they could be better.

I'm really getting to the point where if you don't like it, do something about it. Either run for office and change it, or just don't show up. If you show up, you're obviously liking it enough to participate.

There's a lot of opinion in this thread, including my own, but what seems to be sorely missing is a proper analysis of the race weight escalation that appears to be continuing in '05. Maybe one has already been done and I'm just not aware of it, but I would love to see some hard numbers regarding race weights for '03, '04 and '05 and some sound explanation as to why the increased weights represents an improvement to the series and for the majority of competitors in it.

Gunter put a lot of work on the formula. I'm sure it's probably the best compromise. So, the formula escalated weights. Sure... I agree some cars up at 2600# with driver is unfair to those. One can be on the other side of the debate and list reasons why it's not fair that car X or Y can't be made competitive. Unless you want to specifiy the engine/drivetrain/suspension components like in other series such as SCCA IT, SCCA WC, Grand Am Cup etc then you have very limited control over the performance of the cars in the field. But those technical rules come at a huge cost, which is rampant cheating and technical policing of those rules. The Region doesn't want to have rules that require a lot of policing. I'm not even sure how many F1600 or FV1200 cars get impounded for illegal this or illegal that... or torn down - but I'd be willing to bet that not all the cars comply 100% to the rules... Since we don't have the volunteers/time/desire/resources to police the series - then you're stuck with what the organizers think is the best solution for the problem.

What are the alternatives to making more powerful cars heavy? I can start the seen it, isn't going to work list up... If you want to see what it takes to make a series like Speed WC work, go look at the VTS online...

http://www.world-challenge.com/competitors/vts.html

Then come back to me and tell me how you'd police that series. EEEEEk.. I don't want to even think how much of a pain in the butt that would be.

I'll use my car as the first example. Please add your car to the list if you'd like to see this sort of data as well.

'93 Honda Civic with 1.6L VTEC engine, Type R brakes, and 225/50-15's:
- Minimum race weight for '04 would have been approximately 2227 lbs with driver.
- Minimum race weight for '05 is 2531 lbs with driver
Hmmm, from memory...

'03 - 92 Jetta - 2250# with driver
'04 - 92 Jetta - 8v 2.0l ABA engine, 11" front, 8.9" rear brakes. about #1850 without driver
'05 - 92 Jetta 1857# without driver, can't get my car that light if I tried. I can run the car with the 225/50/15s and run at 2007# without driver. The car sits at 2000# dry now.

<somewhat sarcastic> The best thing for Ontario is to continue with bracket racing. Our cars are so not compatible with any IT/GT/Showroom Stock rules that it's impossible to manage as a technical rule set, or implement new ones. If it were me running the show, I would encourage AMB to make a special modification to their software to fully support bracket racing... Then establish brackets to TGT and voila. No more bitching whining and complaining - myself included.

[Dave]

Thanks for the detailed response. I appreciate it! I hope I'm not cheesing you or anyone else off too much with this, I'm just trying to understand the series I'm buidling my car for.

I love the idea of the race weight calculator and I applaud Gunter for developing it. It's a great tool, but I don't follow the logic behind so many of the newer cars having to run at or above their factory curb weight. Shouldn't they be allowed to run at a reasonable race weight, similar to say the FAQ Touring series, and then allow the older cars to run even lighter? I realize lightness beyond a certain point becomes extremely difficult and expensive to achieve, but there has to be a happier medium I would think.

Um, you want TGT to be bracket racing too? What would be the point of that? Might as well just call SGT, GT, and Touring GTA, GTB and GTC at that point and be done with it. I thought the whole point of the TGTC was to offer competitors some choice, not to rehash the OCC. The OCC is the perfect 'run what you brung' series, so why does the TGTC need to be the same? Wouldn't it make more sense for the premier series in Ontario to have a tighter concept, one that encourages top teams with newer machinery to participate?

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Dave
Um, you want TGT to be bracket racing too? What would be the point of that? Might as well just call SGT, GT, and Touring GTA, GTB and GTC at that point and be done with it. I thought the whole point of the TGTC was to offer competitors some choice, not to rehash the OCC. The OCC is the perfect 'run what you brung' series, so why does the TGTC need to be the same? Wouldn't it make more sense for the premier series in Ontario to have a tighter concept, one that encourages top teams with newer machinery to participate?
I was being cynical there. I should have put a winkie or a couple smilies in there.

You have very valid points. Sure... then put a 12 year model cap on the series, make it like the FAQ series - That does make it more expensive for people. Look how many late 80s early 90s cars that are still in use that wouldn't be able to run in the series. I'm certainly not ready to build a new car. What I see you're saying is that you want it 'Fun and Affordable' yet you want it to be a Premier Series? That's impossible. Either you make it accessible, unbiased as possible or you tighten the rules down, make it 'semi-pro' and limit the years/cars, tighten the technical rules and then police it. Also, the calculator reduces the visability of 'favoritism' of certain car models as seen by the competitors on the actions of the series coordinators.

Are you asking to have the rules structured more like FAQ, Speed WC or others? It will certainly make it more expensive to run at the front - it already is in Touring. Certain cars are competitive other's aren't and the series as it stands now isn't accessible to all of our region's competitors. After driving in the the series for two years, honestly, I'm bored of it. I enjoy the sprints better. I will not participate in it this year. The others driving my car are forced to if they want to race at the same weekend as me - but that's their problem.

[Dave]

Glad you were joking about the TGTC going bracket racing :)

What I see you're saying is that you want it 'Fun and Affordable' yet you want it to be a Premier Series?

Yeah, you're probably right. But having my cake and eating it too is fun and affordable! ;) I guess I'd just like to see the newer cars have a bit more of a reasonable race weight as a starting point so that we're attracting newer cars. The tough part is, I take it, doing so without chasing all the older cars out of the series (which would suck, I agree). I'm sure Gunter has given this a lot more thought than I have, so I'll quit bitching about it since I think I've made my concerns abundantly clear at this point.

I'm not asking for the TGTC to be structured like any other series -- though as an aside I think it would be pretty cool if a national ruleset emerged (like is happening in Solo 1 and Solo 2) whereby there could be a national championship weekend at the end of the season. Who doesn't enjoy watching the SCCA Runoffs on TV? That event looks like a blast. But maybe Canada is too big geographically and too small a market for a national TGTC ruleset to work. We are a more regionalized country, it would seem (at least when it comes to racing).

I actually really like the TGTC weight calculator idea. It takes the guess work out of things and at least attempts to quantify what makes a car faster. I'm just concerned that in its current form the high race weights are going to chase away some quality competitors.

The silly part about all my harping is that I've found a pretty good way (installed a 1.6L engine) to keep my race weight very reasonable, so if I was smart I'd just shut up. So I guess for anyone wondering if I'm as smart as I seem to think...now you have your answer :)

[Bubblecar]

Since I started this thread - let me add my final thoughts (sorry for the long post)

First here are my numbers -
2003 Nissan Sentra SER

2003 - 2,450 lbs with driver - 2,270 without driver
2004 - 2,560 lbs with driver - 2,380 without driver
2005 - 2,897 lbs with driver - 2,717 without driver

In World Challenge the car can run 2,500 with driver (2,320 without), in Quebec FAQ Touring class - 2,400 with driver (2,220 without) and for Grand-Am Cup it's 2,480 with driver (2,300 without).

Before I go further - let me make my own declaration of self-interest.

I am very fortunate to have the resources available to run a car in either class (GT or TC) and to be competitive in either. Frankly if the Series would set weights where they "should be" (consistent with similar classes elsewhere) I think that not only could I win Touring class - but could end up dominating it. (Note the pre-season bravado :D ).

I have a car (actually 2) that ran 1.37's last year and had huge reliability issues - I barely got to heat cycle tires and my best finish was a third. Thanks to lot's of post-season testing, taking the winter off from ice-racing and purchasing yet another car - I have every expectation of running 1.34's all day with the potential of low 1.30's. So no one should be concerned about the rules keeping me from being competive (I do that just fine myself :( ).

Frankly I would love to get out there in touring class and win - but would want to do it by beating the best - Thornely/Kensai in their new TSX, and the Krikorian's in their Preludes, and Dipchand with his Cougar, Scott Nichol in his Acura, Allan in his new BMW, Tom's S2000 - etc., etc, etc. And would love to set new track records everytime I go out. I'm not too concerned about the guy's running 1.42's (although many of them beat me last year. :confused: )

I would also like to run against Dave Diedrick or Karl Thompson with their Grand-AM cup cars. And maybe Josyln Hebert or the Wittmer's from from Quebec.

If the rules stay as they are - No, I won't add a 400 lb - 4 ft by 4 ft skid pad onto my car. I will run in GT and hopefully give Mike Booker and whoever else is there a good run for their money. (Note I also think Mike's car should be correctly allowed to run touring class - it's a four cylinder 2.5 ?)

So why my rants - against this season's changes. Sincerely it comes from a concern for motorsports in Ontario - much more than from wanting to have a class that I can run away from (as if!).

Like they say, you can satisify some of the people all of the time or all of the people - yadda - yadda - yadda.

The officials of this series and all others are volunteers who do their very best to satisfy a lot of people with a lot of different concerns. I think they have made a mistake this year and want to have a chance to fully express my thoughts - which is what this board is for. Whichever way they go - I will continue to do my best to support them and CASC-OR.

[Lude]

Hey Nick, when are you going to open up a driving clinic for us slow guys out here? ;)

[Bubblecar]

As soon as I run out of money (maybe another season or two) - might make a great sideline :D

[Dave]

Like they say, you can satisify some of the people all of the time or all of the people - yadda - yadda - yadda.


Reminds me of that famous quote by George W Bush...

"In Texas (and maybe Tennessee) we have a saying that goes something like this...fool me once and shame on....um, ur...you? Um...(long pause)...IF YOU FOOL ME ONCE YOU CAN'T FOOL ME AGAIN!"

Gotta love it when the leader of the free world is such a sharp-witted master mind...

[rmicroys]

Oh... by the way...

Happy Birthday Nick...

Rob

[slucas]

The SCCA GT class guys are now going through a heated debate regarding "single inlet restricter" induction sysytems. With the exception of cost & fitting,I don't think any of their anti-SIR arguements would be pertinent here.

The SIR mounts ahead of your sealed airbox(no air leaks) and it has a sized venturi that limits the amount of air that enters said air box. You can mathematiclly figure out HP potential of an engine (within a reasonably close number for the purpose) by figuring out air & fuel intake. This devise will restrict a full race engine by only letting in enough air to support the class target HP.At the same time ,on a simalar car with a semi race engine,the SIR is invisable as it feeds the engine all the air it needs.For a differant car with a stock , but much larger displacement engine,a differant size SIR may be used to get that car to the "class target" HP .
Now ,keep in mind this is a Coles Notes version, but if you were to race in this class it seems to make sense to run a low stress big engine at the target HP, than a full race lump at the same HP.
From what I have read this sounds like a great equalizer that we should look at. The down side is cost & fitment.The SIR looks to be costing about 300 to 400 $ U.S. (the veturi is changable for fine tuning) and the airbox would have to be built to suit your car.
Most of our cars are "tub" cars so making an air tight air box could be very difficult.
If anyone is interested, I can get more info.
Scott

[Bubblecar]

I guess my point is that I didn't think it was the intention of this series to equalize cars like in a spec series, beyond keeping any one individual from running away with it.

If you look at our podiums for the past two years an incredible number and variety of cars and drivers have been represented. Go back and look at the final standings - or even the race by race results. Who could have asked for better competition?

We have had groups of three - four - five cars fighting throughout the field.

If you want to equalize (as in World Challenge) you can only do it with similar (cost and sophistication) cars.

I don't think we should be trying to make professionally built touring cars run on par with 10 year old weekend racers.



(And yes - today's my birthday - 51 - now I get to chase the master's title)

[karlt]

Nick, you've raised a very interesting thread.

Indeed, Compass360 will be returning to regional racing with our Grand Am Cup BMW Z3 Coupes. In GAC, they weigh 2,650lbs without the driver. To make the 2,900+ TGTC weight, we will have to add 250lbs, plus make allowances for a possible additional 200lbs. Going from 2,650lbs to 3,100lbs will, I believe, be very hard on the cars.

Consequently, we're figuring on running in either GT or OCC. If the idea of the TGTC was to create a local version with the flavour of SWC or GAC, then it seems odd that those of already running in those series will not be competing in the class that was ostensibly designed for us. I'm not suggesting the creation of Grand Am Cup North, and it's clear we will have ample competition with our local pals in GAC, I do think the weight calculator is off.

If I think back to 2003, I would have found it fun to be able to really compete with the guys who are also running pro. If the usual suspects show up, that would include Thornley's TSX, Deitrich's Sentra, Nick's Sentra, and our two Z3s. Throw Madden, the Krikorians and Ian Law in there and you've got a pretty good battle. At the moment at least three of those cars are going to run GT, which I think is too bad.

As ever, just my $0.02, and no reflection on the effort Gunter and the team have put in over the past few years.

Karl T
http://www.compass360.com/racing/2004

[KENSAI-R]

Weights for Kensai Racing

2000 Integra Type R (now retired)

03 weight 2510lbs w/driver, no rewards weight, best time 1.35.6
04 weight 1951cc motor 2640lbs w/driver, best time 1.35.1 (sandbagging) w/60lbs reward (2700lbs)
04 weight 1597cc motor 2480lbs w/driver, best time 1.34.6 w/200lbs reward (2680lbs)
05 weight 1951cc motor 2933lbs w/driver (293 lbs over 04)
05 weight 1597cc motor 2637lbs w/driver
FAQ Touring weight 2500lbs w/driver
Speed World Challenge 2350lbs w/driver (wet sump)

2003 RSX Type S (swc car #41) w/2.4l motor

TGT 05 weight 3072lbs w/driver this does not include 90lbs of fuel needed and the possible (more than likely) 200lbs reward weight
Speed World Challenge 2600lbs w/driver (wet sump)
FAQ Touring 2600lbs w/driver (I think)

2004 TSX (GAC car #74)

TGT 05 weight 2979lbs w/driver
Grand Am Cup weight 2600lbs wo/driver 2800lbs w/driver
FAQ Touring weight 2700lbs w/driver (i think)

2003 RSX Type S (GAC car #75)

TGT 05 weight 2848lbs w/driver
Grand Am Cup weight 2450lbs wo/driver 2650lbs w/driver
FAQ Touring weight 2600lbs w/driver

Bottom line is this, WE WILL STILL WIN WITH THE 2005 WEIGHTS. But to prove what??? Don't think we want to try it, to spend the money, time and effort, not to mention the wear and tear on the new equipment at this weight is pointless. I would rather help out the other Honda competitors in this series, so hopefully they can win. We take the show on the road.

[Lude]

I think Kensai makes a good point. If we keep adjusting the weights in the formula to slow down the front runners all that seems to do is push them out of the series. Either that or we’ll all be driving VW’s to beat the weight calculator.

Our starting race weight is going to be almost the same as our ending race weight from last year. Add another 200lbs of rewards weight we’ll end up close to 3000lbs without driver. That is most likely going to take a serious toll on the equipment for the car that is running touring. There will come a time where the cost threshold will get exceeded for our team, then the cost of doing another series such as Grand-am will no longer seem that expensive.

Moving away from this series would be shame as I think we have the fundamentals of turning a good series into a great series. It’s just that we need to decide if we want to cater to the slower competitors at the expense of the faster ones or do we want to somehow encourage the slower guys to step up.

[WRL]

Wow, we have a few very confident teams! Nick and his Nissans, Kensai and their Hondas, both feel they have the equipment and ability to dominate the series and maybe they do. Kensai seems to think they will win regardless of weight. Personally, I would never be that confident, but that's me. There's too many talented drivers in the region (I'm not included) that have the ability to win.

I agree there seems to be a problem with vehicle weights and rules. However after entering my car details, I actually like the weight calculator. Here's my setup, Williams Renault Laguna's exBTCC, Weight in BTCC without driver 2,150 lbs, weight in TGT 2086lbs. Where shall I loose the weight? Any idea's? Hey, I wonder if Kensai is still that confident?

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by Lude
Moving away from this series would be shame as I think we have the fundamentals of turning a good series into a great series. It’s just that we need to decide if we want to cater to the slower competitors at the expense of the faster ones or do we want to somehow encourage the slower guys to step up.

HERE! HERE! That's exactly the point I've been trying to make for several days in this thread and previously in others!

Either that or we’ll all be driving VW’s to beat the weight calculator.

That seems to be the missing factor - I've heard from all the front runners except the VW's - how does this huge weight readjustment affect them? (If at all).

Originally posted by WRL
Here's my setup, Williams Renault Laguna's exBTCC, Weight in BTCC without driver 2,150 lbs, weight in TGT 2086lbs.
If that's true then it's just plain ridicules and makes me question the whole calculator formula! The Williams/Renault BTCC car is likely the fastest touring car we have ever seen at Mosport and the calculator says 2,086 ?????

[KENSAI-R]

Confident because in the two year history of the series our two Integra's have won more than 50% of all the touring class races in this series. We have more wins than the rest of the touring field combined. That's why we feel confident.

[Bubblecar]

And if the new rules stay - then your (Kensai/Thornely) track record will likely stand for years to come - until a car 300 - 400 lbs heavier can match it. (Or the Williams/Renault comes out)

Or are they going to cancel all track records and start all over for the new rule set?

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Bubblecar
That seems to be the missing factor - I've heard from all the front runners except the VW's - how does this huge weight readjustment affect them? (If at all).

Okay... Volkswagens:

2.8l (2781 cc) VR6 2 cams, 12V, 11" front brakes, 8.9" rear rotors, single pot calipers, is somewhere around 2300# no driver, from a really quick calculation.

Same brakes, 2.0l (1984cc) 16V is 2168# no driver.

It’s just that we need to decide if we want to cater to the slower competitors at the expense of the faster ones or do we want to somehow encourage the slower guys to step up.
Slower? What is considered slower? Under 1m40s? People who enter GTC and GTD cars in the series really are only doing so for track time - not for the competition - or at least not to attempt to win a trophy.

Am I encouraged to step up? I keep getting told I need to spend more though... Regardless? No. I don't want to spend the money to make my car in to a GT-B car, or even yet, faster, a GT-A car which is what any car hoping to be competitive in Touring needs to be now. It's cost prohibitive for most Regional competitors.

So, who do we want to attract? What budgets are the organizers expecting to see people spend? How many races do organizers expect people to go to? We know ORO don't seem to care that we don't go to ALL the events - otherwise there would be fewer events this year.

Now with the increased number of events I have to make a choice in what to enter. Do I enter the enduros? Sacrifice some TGT or OCC events? Or to I concentrate on the OCC and see what happens with my budget and if I have the extra cash I can enter an Enduro? The top 10 guys in Touring that raced last year will probably enter everything again - you guys spend the cash - and have it - others may not.

I also agree for those interested in participcating in other series with their cars (GA, SWC, FAQ T) they can't realistically do so with a 300-400lb weight spread between the rulebooks.

[Bubblecar]

Rob,

I also agree for those interested in participcating in other series with their cars (GA, SWC, FAQ T) they can't realistically do so with a 300-400lb weight spread between the rulebooks.Thanks for your comments in general, your support on this issue, and for publishing the weights for your VW.

Boy that sounds light for a 6 cylinder 2.8l ? I know it's older technology - but doesn't sound that much different than some BMW 328's. What is the supposed manufacturers HP rating for your engine?

[rmicroys]

The VR6 has been around since, what, 1993? In it's various forms in the various VW models, it can be found to have anything from about 168hp (12V) to just shy of 200 (24V) So it depends on which one you use. For the 2 cammer 12V it is a fairly attractive package... but is a lot heavier than the 16V 2.0l - but I think that the reliability and speed that can be had from the VR can make it a more attractive pacakge over a high strung 2.0l 16V... I guess the difference between the VWs and the rest of you guys with all the modern variable valve timing engines, is that you pay an extra penalty for that...

I'm surprised you guys don't just wack the numbers through the spreadsheets. It takes nothing to punch in the cc, cams and valve counts to get the weights to compare...

[Bubblecar]

I would Rob (punch in the numbers) - but other than having four, count'em 4, VX Fox "ice-racers" (bought one - given 3) - I just don't know anything about the VW model line, engine configurations, etc, etc.

[AndrewW]

We are also feeling this weight issue in the GT class with our 944 Turbo. It has taken us 2 years, and a substantial investment to build what we feel is a SAFE, fast, professional car. The heavier these cars get, the greater the chance for safety issues. I feel it is safe to say nobody is adding the weight to their cages, after all the cars have already been built. At 1200 dollars for a set of tires with our "racers discount" the extra weight is going to be costly in many areas.

As it stands now we have to add approximately 300lbs. and the solution seems to be to go run in SGT. However, we did not build an SGT class car, this car is still a production based GT class racecar built around a unit body. If we knew the ruleset was going to take this path, we would have built a tube frame chassis. But why before we have even had a chance to campaign our new car, is our local series which is trying to encourage participation, pushing our car away.

There seems to be significant interest in racing in Ontario, and people are willing to invest in safe, well executed, fast cars. So why is the trend to keep accomodating slower equipment?

This weight issue seems to be experienced by everyone except for Joe's BTCC car for whatever reason, can we not make a reduction accross the board?

Andrew

[Christian Sorensen]

Just for fun, I've run the numbers on my BMW 328i:
With 2793cc VANOS, 6 cyl 24 valves, stock single piston calipers of 286/276mm and independent rear suspension, using stock size of 225x50R16 tires. I get a weight of .... 3053 lbs w/o driver!

Curb weight as delivered on this car is 3025 lbs...

Confirming the numbers for rmicroys on a VW Golf VR6 with 2781cc non-variable valve timing, 6cyl, 12 valves, stock single piston calipers of 279/226mm and beam rear axle, using stock size 205x55R16 tires. I get a weight of ... 2291 lbs w/o driver!

Curb weight as delivered on this car is (in 99) is 2890 lbs...

The difference in mandatory race weight minimums is 762 pounds!

Some idea of where the differences are found in the weight calculator can be found by starting with the VW specs and changing individual variables: (the following accounts for 714 lbs difference)
cc displacement 2793 vs 2781: +3 lbs
VANOS vs not: +148 lbs
24 valves vs 12: +108 lbs
286/276 brakes vs 279/226: +51 lbs
independent suspension vs not: +254 lbs
225 rubber vs 205 rubber: +150 lbs

Echoing Dave Pratte's comments, I'd love to see what sort of real analysis informed the formula's variables in order to produce such a large discrepancy.

Christian

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Bubblecar
I would Rob (punch in the numbers) - but other than having four, count'em 4, VX Fox "ice-racers" (bought one - given 3) - I just don't know anything about the VW model line, engine configurations, etc, etc.

Come now... you look like a websavy kinda guy! A quick Google on "Golf VR6 specifications" will find a page with most of the bore, stroke, rotor sizes, etc... You're just not trying. ;)

[Bubblecar]

Chris,

Aside from the fact that you (and it seems many others) are required to run cars at factory delivered curb weight (with airconditioning / stereo / passenger seating / padding options) - if you look back to last year's calculator - your car weight (assuming 180 lbs for driver and equipment - which is pretty low) has been increased this year by about 252 lbs.

If last year you had done "any" stripping of the car at all to make it a safer and a more practical track car (as opposed to the street legal shape it is currently in) - you would now be required to put all of that weight - plus possibly more - back in.

This is not just a change of rules to adjust competion for one or two vehicles that previously had an advantage - this is a complete overhaul of the foundation of the touring class.

We will likely end up seeing either -

1. A largely reduced field.

2. Another mid season change of rules (like last year) which could put everone into chaos.

3. Highly increased sales of 1/2 inch steel skid plates to define a new category of racing.;)

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Bubblecar
3. Highly increased sales of 1/2 inch steel skid plates to define a new category of racing.;)
You have to admit, 1/4 or 1/2 steel plate is a great way to protect your oil pan during those off tarmac excursions... ;)

[GR8 Ride]

One thing to keep in mind guys, and Rob eluded to the point earlier, is that Gunter's job is incredibly difficult.

While it's nice to compare the Speed WC and GrandAm Cup weights to ours, the fact is, they have far more restrictive rules and far more restrictive enforcement of those rules. We merely have the resources to do one thing; weigh the cars.

So you balance them out the way you can.

Yeah, it's not perfect, but no generic calculator applied to a wide variety of cars is ever going to be. It appears as though a VW is going to be the car of choice for Touring this year, just as having a BMW or Integra was the car of choice a couple of years ago. :D

Part of the reason is also in how SGT had precious few cars two years back, and GT had small fields (in relation to Touring) last year. I think if some people move up from Touring into GT (and that includes Chris, Nick, et al), then we can balance out the two fields a little more.

Unlike GAC or SpeedWC, there are few competitors in regionals with huge dollars supporting their race habit, and in the end, money is almost always the determining factor in who wins. We have to remember guys, there is nothing to win at the end of the race, or at the end of the year. There is no grand prize, no big cheque, no national recognition.

Realistically, Touring has been dominated by a few cars these past couple of years. Nothing wrong with having a few of those cars step up a level, and move to GT. It will make for better racing in GT, and give the Touring field a better shot at some races.


Pat

[Bubblecar]

Hi Pat,

Thanks for your comments.

I am not trying to compare weights to GAC and WC - but rather to what was established as the weights for this series when it started two years ago. Also I compare them to the FAQ series in Quebec - who have stayed with a system almost like the one we started with.

And I would really question your comment about a couple of cars dominating in the past two years. Check the record - the number of different cars represented on the podium last year and the year before where not only varied - but quite surprising. The big budget cars are not anywhere near as dominant as some would believe. Yes - Thornely/Kensai had a GREAT year. But I still don't think they wrapped up the championship till the last weekend.

I think any series that re-writes the rules every year - including and excluding cars that were previously allowed will have trouble attracting entrants. Even I can't afford to build a new car each and every season (I tried :D )

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by GR8 Ride
Unlike GAC or SpeedWC, there are few competitors in regionals with huge dollars supporting their race habit, and in the end, money is almost always the determining factor in who wins. We have to remember guys, there is nothing to win at the end of the race, or at the end of the year. There is no grand prize, no big cheque, no national recognition.

Realistically, Touring has been dominated by a few cars these past couple of years. Nothing wrong with having a few of those cars step up a level, and move to GT. It will make for better racing in GT, and give the Touring field a better shot at some races.

Evidently you haven't read your latest issue of Inside Track? I hope you subscribe!

Every Ontario sedan Class winner was on a half page. Thornely (TGT Touring), Gay (TGT GT), Lang (GT-D), Holmes (GT-C), Gunter (GT-B), and Fieger (GT-A) National recognition in print. Don't tell me that you wouldn't mind being on that page at the end of this coming season!

Honestly? Dominate... have a good solid GT-B car and show up to all the races, you will place in the top 5 by year end in the standings. Come out with a solid GTC car and you can be in the top ten! Then there's up AND finishing with a reliable car. There were only 3 TGT Touring drivers that scored points in all the events - two of whom were in the top 5 at the end of the year. Show up and you'll be able to do well. Then if you spend the money, you will win. It's that easy.

[Christian Sorensen]

I posted the the weight calculator's handling of the BMW and the VW, and tried to analyze which factors contributed to the disparity in order to help illustrate what is going on with it.

I asked what sort of real analysis has informed the calculator's variables out of genuine curiosity.

I don't understand what the 'difficulty of Gunter's job' has to do with this. I have to presume that he has the resources to have a team/committee of dedicated and informed individuals working on this, just as we do with Solo 1.

I assume that there is more behind the formulas than just WAG (wild-assed guesses), which is why I'm asking. Furthermore, given the number of competitors who've posted indicating that their minimum weights have gone up significantly this year, I wonder what sort of analysis of previous year's results has been undertaken that might support such a change.

Christian

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Christian Sorensen
I don't understand what the 'difficulty of Gunter's job' has to do with this. I have to presume that he has the resources to have a team/committee of dedicated and informed individuals working on this, just as we do with Solo 1.

ORO is a committee that runs the races, the Race Committee is a group that makes sure we all race safely. Though I'm not sure who really has input (as in a committee) to the changes in the calculator or the OCC bracket times. I think Gunter owns that himself. (Hence the COPYRIGHT © 2004,2005 by Schmidt Racing at the bottom of the calculator) ;)

I assume that there is more behind the formulas than just WAG (wild-assed guesses), which is why I'm asking. Furthermore, given the number of competitors who've posted indicating that their minimum weights have gone up significantly this year, I wonder what sort of analysis of previous year's results has been undertaken that might support such a change.

I bet that's a question that only Gunter can answer. Here's my guess. A look was made at, say, the top 10 competitor's lap times from last year. The calculator now adjusts the weights of those cars to equalize their lap times.

[slucas]

Gunter just isn't the "wild-ass guessing" type.;)

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by rmicroys
<snip> Here's my guess. A look was made at, say, the top 10 competitor's lap times from last year. The calculator now adjusts the weights of those cars to equalize their lap times. [/B]

I thought that at first too - but when I looked back at who the actual top 15 cars were - and then look at the week to week laptimes of the top 8 in each of the last three weekends - it just doesn't seem to add up.

As Chris Sorensen has been asking - if the rationale and background stats could be shown and explained - it would be alot easier to accept.

[Bubblecar]

Well,

I have made my thoughts and opinions clearly known, provided as much detail and information as I can, have kept this thread going to get viewpoints from other participants, and have sent email to John B and Gunter asking them to consider my objections.

Not much else I can do - we'll see if there is any change to the rules or if they go ahead as planned. I'm just spending way too much time on this board (:) ) and will leave it up to the series officials now.

[GR8 Ride]

Originally posted by rmicroys
Evidently you haven't read your latest issue of Inside Track? I hope you subscribe!

Every Ontario sedan Class winner was on a half page. Thornely (TGT Touring), Gay (TGT GT), Lang (GT-D), Holmes (GT-C), Gunter (GT-B), and Fieger (GT-A) National recognition in print. Don't tell me that you wouldn't mind being on that page at the end of this coming season!

Honestly? Dominate... have a good solid GT-B car and show up to all the races, you will place in the top 5 by year end in the standings. Come out with a solid GTC car and you can be in the top ten! Then there's up AND finishing with a reliable car. There were only 3 TGT Touring drivers that scored points in all the events - two of whom were in the top 5 at the end of the year. Show up and you'll be able to do well. Then if you spend the money, you will win. It's that easy.

Rob,

Yes, I do subscribe, and while the article is nice for each guy, that article and $3.95 buys you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

As to dominating, I wasn't referring to the Sprints, which we both know can be won (overall) by somebody showing up on a regular basis.

In either Touring or GT last year, you needed both consistency AND good results to win. And in the past couple of years, a few cars were regularly at or near the top of the pack in Touring (Thornley, Nigel and Nicholas, Ian etc).

As to spending the money and you will win, yes, that's true. But NO SET OF RULES in racing will ever change that. Regionals or otherwise. He who spends the most money generally wins.

I can see the concerns everyone has about the weight calculator, and how the increased weight is of concern. I've elected to go build the GT route instead of Touring, as my minimum weight in GT is significantly less.

It was this way last year for Mike Booker, as he'd rather run his E30 M3 in GT with less weight than in Touring with additional weight. He made a conscious decision, and went with it.

Again, I get back to my basic point; since there is no prize for winning EITHER Touring or GT, who cares what class you run in? The cost to build a competitive Touring car is prohibitive; I simply don't have the funds to compete with Kensai or the Krikorians, so I'll choose not to.

For less money I can build a car to compete with Bob, Mike and Allan in GT, and run that way. It will be a faster car, I'll have less weight issues to deal with, and because there is no prize money associated with either Touring or GT, I'm not tied to building a car to a set of rules that are changing constantly. I simply don't care.

Look at it this way. If everyone is equally pissed off with the rule changes, then Gunter probably isn't too far off the mark. :D


Pat

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by GR8 Ride
As to dominating, I wasn't referring to the Sprints, which we both know can be won (overall) by somebody showing up on a regular basis.
Neither was I. I'm serious, a top 3 finish in Touring is a big accomplishment. There is a lot of commitment there. To win overall in Touring, ya, sure you MUST be at every event, and you MUST do well - and you WILL spend a lot of money doing it. Yes, and all for a 1/2 page in Inside Track ;)

[Bubblecar]

I know - I know - I said I was done posting - but I'm not (sorry guys). Pat has made a few points and assumptions that I really would like to address. (Prepare for long speech . . .)

It was this way last year for Mike Booker, as he'd rather run his E30 M3 in GT with less weight than in Touring with additional weight. He made a conscious decision, and went with it. And if you look at the final results - Mike ended up the season in 5th place overall - with only about 6 cars running most of the season. I know he holds the GT lap record - but in order for a 4 cylinder car to complete with all the big eights and turbo chargers, you end up with "grenade" motors, reliablity issues and big budgets.

I am surprised at your view on this issue - if we look at the BMW 325 you ran two years ago - and proudly told us about the limited HP and still regular 1:37's - 1:38's - That same car, which was nicely prepared, stripped and set-up, might need several hundred pounds added back in to run touring - or several thousand dollars to be any more than a moving chicane in GT.

Look at Chris's example - His 1:40 BMW 328 with full interior and passenger seat, etc - would have to put back in any weight removed plus some. (He's hardly one of the front runners we are trying to slow down.)

Or look at Ken McCartan with a CRX that runs 1:38's - don't feel too bad my car will be 250 lbs over factory
Or DRPEPPER (I don't even know what car he hopes to run)Out of curiosity, is anyone elses base weight higher than the factory delivered weight? If I realized earlier, I wouldn't have stripped out the a/c and the stereo lol. Maybe I'll still keep the full interior tho . But seriously, are most people running at/near factory weight? If I run on 225 tires, and use big brake rotors (with stock calipers even), I'll be 180 lbs over factory .Dave Pratte is building a 1.6 litre Honda Civc - He has to add weight?

What if someone brought out a Nissan Sentra 2.5 with 145 HP to the wheels - they would end up with the same weights as me but would likely run in the low 40's (unless they had my budget;) )

Should all these cars just say oh well and run in GT. This has little to do with slowing down the front runners in touring and yes I think something is wrong with the underlying principles.

As for the expense vs "prize value" of winning. There is very little (perhaps NO) economic sense or justification for most of our involvement in motorsports. It just doesn't make sense financially - but that doesn't mean we don't want to compete hard and try like heck for first place for whatever value that may or may not hold.

As for dominant cars at the front of the field - the only driver who "ran away" with his class and wrapped things up weeks before season end was Bob Gay - Maybe we should add 500 lbs to his car to slow him down and give the rest of us a chance. Obviously not. (Maybe that is a good idea - let's add 500 lbs to all the V-8 BMW's so I can detune my non-touring/touring car and still run with you - but let's wait till after you finish your car before we tell you.)

Why not make use of the rewards weights - why are cars forced to be redesigned to add hundreds of pounds before they even do a lap - while weights for actual results are limited to 200 lbs max.

One of the other things that these "new" rules are doing - is hanging out a "NO VISITORS WELCOME" sign. There is no way a car from an SCCA region - or Quebec FAQ can come over and run an event or two with us and any of us who want to visit their series would be forced to have two different set-ups. Pat - you know the implication and required testing to set-up and dial-in a car at 400 lbs difference in weight. (Mega bucks)

Obviously Gunter has done what he thinks is best - but I think he should try another method. Examples come from other CASC disciplines.

This weekend, Dave Hilton hosted the Ice-Racering drivers's meeting in Minden. Postings made to our forums and rule suggestion e-mailed to him - were brought up and considered (and mostly rejected). But the drivers had a say.

In Solo 1 - an ongoing classification committee (chaired by Dave Pratte) keeps running calculations, holding meetings and listening to drivers. While the formula is ever changing - they finally have a system that is very effective.

As you know - when we have a driver's meeting in Touring - it is to be advised of what the new rules are - not to ask for our opinions. And at last years meeting we were clearly told about rule changes - no debate - no discussion - just a very detailed explanation of how rules would be applied. Then in mid season when it turned out that two cars were running out of spec - the rules were changed retroactively. That was after a number of cars chose not to run because of tire size and others like me invested lot's of money in a non-optimum set-up.

Note - at the end of last season - we held an impromptu drivers meeting at Mosport. There was discusson of a "super touring class" to allow high prep cars their own grouping - but both John and Gunter concluded at the end that it sounded like drivers want to continue the status quo for another year.

These forums - which have no official status - and I am not even sure if series official read the posts - are my only way to express opinion and "maybe" have some impact.

Also - this debate isn't (or shouldn't be) about who or which cars the rules are good for or not - but whether the rule set is good for the overall benefit of the series.

[Dave]

Factory curb weight on my '93 Civic CX hatchback is 2127 lbs.

With the 1.8L DOHC VTEC engine I ran last year (which I would have left in my car had the race weight associated with it been more reasonable) my race weight would be 2430 lbs with 205/50-15's or 2580 lbs with 225/50-15's (which is the size I've always run for Solo 1). That's a whoppin' 453 lbs above the factory rating. Now, in all fairness my car was never available (in North America) with a B-series dual overhead cam engine like I've installed (though in Japan it was), so this weight gap is a bit artificially inflated. The Japanese market '92-95 Civic SiR II (same generation and chassis as my car, but equipped with a 1.6L B-series DOHC VTEC engine making 170 hp) weighs in at 2293 lbs -- so in reality my car is having to run 287 lbs above its factory curb weight for the same engine.

With the 1.6L DOHC VTEC engine I've put in for '05 (to avoid having to add 300 lbs of ballast to the car) I can run the car at 2161 lbs with 205/50-15's or 2311 lbs with 225/50-15's. Still a touch over factory curb weight, but a lot more reasonable.

Going with the 1.6L engine is a decent end-around for my particular car, but most folks in Touring class don't have a 1.6L engine option that puts out enough horsepower to be anywhere near competitive. So personally I've found a way to keep my car's weight somewhat reasonable, but my concerns run deeper than my own car. It continues to worry me that the weight that many competitors are being required to add this year will hurt the series both in the short- and in the long-term. Expecting car owners with small displacement 4 cylinder engines to run in GT, where they have to compete against cars with huge power and displacement advantages, seems totally counter-intuitive to me if what Ontario wants is a true Touring/GT series.

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Bubblecar
Obviously Gunter has done what he thinks is best - but I think he should try another method. Examples come from other CASC disciplines.

There is an easier method. It's very easy, and a much easier pill to swallow than adding weight for most competitors.

It's called a restrictor plate. Very easy for people with a single throttle to implement. For those running dual carbs or ITBs, a sealed airbox with said restrictor plate.

All competitors much show up with a single intake point airbox, and restrictor plates of 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 percent reductions from the OEM throttle bore size. Seal the plates and/or airboxes with the plates mounted. And there you go. If any of the top ten show up to post-race tech with any of your seals missing - you get the boot. Have some work to do to your car that requires your seals to be cut between weekends, get them resealed at the begining of the next weekend.

You want to slow somebody down? It's VERY easy...

If you put in a new motor because you went to a smaller restrictor, expect to have your restrictor size go down again the next weekend if your laptimes don't go slower.

[slucas]

Guys, don't get caught up in the arguement about race weight versus stock weight. The car companies don't build them to be competitive with each other so we (or the rule maker) need to do it for ourselves.

[GR8 Ride]

Nick,


As always, all good points, and never did I say that I disagreed with you. Merely that in my own situation, it was much easier to fold under the pressure, and to build the car to GT specs, rather than Touring.

You're right, my previous racecar in Touring form would have to add weight to it, which is exactly why I've chosen to go the route I have.

My point in saying that it's easier to build a GT car than a Touring car is simply this: the rules and the series itself don't motivate me to spend the money to build a competitive touring car. There is no financial upside to my building a competitive Touring car, and while there isn't a financial upside to building a competitive GT car, the cash outlay is significantly less. The field is smaller, the competition is a little easier, and I don't have to deal with the weight issues I would in Touring.

I agree with you that the rules appear to be exclusionary, rather than inclusionary. And this is a bad precedent for regional racing to set. On the flipside, nobody is ever happy with the rules, so the likelihood that we'd all be smiles and laughs about the ruleset is non-existant anyway.

As to competitors building their car to run in other series, that's a non-issue as well. You build the car to run in the series that you plan to focus on. For you, if that's SpeedWC, then build it to SpeedWC, and if it's uncompetitive in Regional Touring, than so be it. No one set of rules is going to cover all cars, in all series.

I spend most of my time running in Regionals, so I'll build the car to those rules. If I run an FAQ event, then great, I get to take weight out, and I'm a happy guy. If I run SpeedWC.....ooops, my car is too old, so I guess I can't run there either. Different sets of rules have different clauses in them to be perceived as 'exclusionary'. So I don't tend to worry about cross series rule harmonization.


Any time you attempt to slow some of the front runners down in a sport, you're going to snare some of the slower cars as well. It's fishing with a net, versus a rod / reel. Instead of making it a multi-class series, in which each car has it's own class, why not make it a single class series, in which each car has it's own set of rules? :D

Not going to happen, is it? So the rules that snare Christian are the same rules that snare me, and the same rules that snare you. Fair, maybe not, but they are applied to everyone equally, right or wrong.

As to Bob, he wrapped things up well before the end of the season because he was consistent, finished races, and showed up for all weekends. It wasn't because he was the fastest car out there; in fact, anything but. There were at least 2 GT cars (Mike and Allan) who were demonstratably quicker than Bob. They just broke, or couldn't make it to a weekend. So consistency won, and not all out performance.

Does that mean we should start slowing down cars who's driver shows up every weekend? :D

To your ultimate question: is the current ruleset good for the overall health of the TGT series?

Overall, I'd say yes. Is it perfect, nope. Will it ever be perfect, nope. Yes, I agree, that some tweaking of the weight calculator is probably in order, as significant weight has been added on this year. Also, rule stability needs to take place at some point in time. The only long term way this, or any other driver funded series remains viable is such that the investment each driver makes into his or her car can be spread over multiple years. Building a new car year over year isn't viable for most of us. We need something that can largely carry over with only minor tweaks year to year.

Personally, I come back to my initial recommendation from several months back. A four class series, broken down by two primary factors: displacement, and rim size.

IE, Class 1, 1999 cc and below, 15 inch wheels and below. Weight calculator based upon displacement. Non-adjustable suspension (ie non adjustable shocks).

Class 2, 2000 cc to 2999 cc. 16 inch wheels and below. Weight calculator applies upon displacement. Shock adjustments not allowed.

Class 3, 3000 cc to 3999 cc. 17 inch wheels and below. Weight calculator based upon displacement. Adjustable shocks allowed.

4.0L and above, all else free.

Forced air (factory or not) imposes a 1.5x displacement calculation, and can result in a bump in class.

You can always compete in a higher class, but not a lower one.

Brakes, VANOS / VVTi / VTEC free. Cylinder count, valve count, rotor size, caliper piston count, suspension design (solid rear axle or independent) are all free.

Simple, concise, inclusionary set of rules.


But, like you, nobody listens to me. :D



Pat

[Dave]

*said with a Fraser Crane voice*

Pat, I'm listening... :)

Other than the non-adjustable shock limitation (most Solo 2 and Solo 1 cars have adjustable shocks, let alone regional race cars) for Class 1 and 2, I think your rules recommendations make a great deal of sense! Assuming, of course, that the "Weight calculator based upon displacement" is dealt with sensibly.

I wonder though, you state that you think the current TGTC rules are good for the health of the series. Care to expand on that a bit? I ask out of genuine interest and with an open-mind. I'm having a very hard time seeing how the high race weights for the majority of cars in the field is good for the series on a whole.

[GR8 Ride]

Dave,

I make the point about adjustable shocks because their impact on performance / laptimes is significantly greater than that of 4 piston front calipers, or a 332 mm rotor vs a 286 mm rotor.

My point in mentioning it is that there appears to be little rhyme or reason to some of the fields in the existing weight calculator, and we're missing some huge performance advantages elsewhere. Outside of displacement, is there a measureable difference in performance from a 2.5L 4 cylinder car to a 2.5L 6 cylinder car?

Yet I can probably bolt Moton triple adjustable shocks onto my car, and I'll bet it's worth 2+ seconds per lap. All with no weight penalty.

My thoughts on a sensible weight calculator simply come down to displacement to weight. Forget VTEC, forget valve count, piston count, brake piston count etc. Something plain and simple, to balance out the field within a class (ie, so 1.6L cars are generally competitive with other sub 2.0L cars).

No field will ever be perfectly balanced, but reward weight should help to compensate that to some extent. Oh, and I'd raise the limits on reward weight to 300 lbs.

Anyhow, my proposal aside, here is why I think the existing ruleset as a framework is good for the series.

One, we need a premiere series of some sort to run in Ontario. We have the drivers, the cars, the overall financial resources (perhaps not on a driver by driver basis, but on an overall economic basis), and the facilities to support it. Sprints are all fine and dandy, but the appeal to a premiere series is having an inclusionary, but clear and understandable set of rules. At it's very framework, these rules exist in TGT.

I never said the rules were perfect for the series, but the underlying principle of the rules is healthly for it. The idea of reward weight, the idea of a base weight for each car, the idea that engine modifications are difficult to scrutineer etc. In that sense, the ruleset is a solid one.

The challenge comes from tweaking the rules to suit the challenges we as regional racers face. IE, do the weights make sense? Are the factors in the weight calculator valid, or are they simply wild assed guesses?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the penalty for running 332 mm rotors seems huge to that of 286 mm rotors. And even worse, why punish a driver with 4 piston brake calipers, when there is little to no performance benefit over single piston floating calipers? We may as well start penalizing drivers who choose race pads over street pads.

The weight calculator also doesn't consider RWD vs FWD, nor does it consider adjustable shocks.

Overall, it's a good effort, but I think the challenge of placing that task into the hands of a single person is a little overwhelming. A generic calculator can't possible attempt to cover all aspects of performance amongst cars from different countries, manufacturers, and even philosophies of design. The calculator has to try and cover tube-frame one-offs, production cars of both modern, and vintage, eras.

The calculator is an interesting idea, but I think the task at hand is too extreme for it.

Again, the underlying ruleset (equalize cars to some extent based upon weight, as it's relatively easy to moderate) is a solid one. We simply need to tweak the process to make it truly effective.


Pat

[Dave]

Fantastic post, Pat. I couldn't agree more with your take on the situation. Refreshingly full of common sense! Thanks for sharing.

[rmicroys]

Pat,

It makes no sense to make such a radical departure from the current rules to adopt something as simple as that. Simplicity doesn't work either. (Seriously, is this horse dead yet? I've still got a full clip of bullets!?) Race weight and rewards penalty weight alone cannot control laptimes because spending cannot ultimately be controlled in a mixed marque series. Sure in sealed engine series by one builder, ya, no problem. Everybody makes the same power. (ala CART) We all choose to drive different cars, with different technolgy or in some cases a complete lack of it.

A simple starting base weight for each make/model, plus a set of entrant provided restrictor plates will solve all the problems. If you go too fast, you just get the next smaller plate for the next weekend and/or your competitors get to remove theirs. I'm not sure why we as drivers don't agree to something as simple as this. I've heard more than enough drivers talk about them being a good alternative solution.

I hear too much bitching but nobody offers realistic alternative solutions the complaints.

[Lude]

I may be a bit biased but what exactly was wrong with the rules set we had in ’04 and ’05. I know there was a huge difference in lap times between the slowest guys and the fastest ones, but unless you run a spec series with equal divers you will get that. The championship was not decided last year until the last race! The rewards weights were having an effect on the cars. Sure the lap times throughout the year were getting faster but that is primarily a factor of ongoing development of the race cars. I’ve ran my car on a Friday test day with no rewards weights in the car towards the end of the season and I was running close to 1.5 seconds faster on that day vs when I had to put the weights back in the car. 1.5 seconds is a hell of a lot of time. Last year we discussed the safety concerns of adding more than 200lbs in rewards weights in the cars, yet this year we are to start the year off by making the cars starting weight by adding 200lbs!! I take it that safety concern is no longer there. If so why not do as Pat recommends bump up max rewards weight to 300lbs.

I like the idea of no longer starting the year off with base weight with driver then arriving at race weight without the driver after the first session. Start the year off with a minimum race weight and take out the driver variable, great idea. Let’s just adjust the formula to the same levels as before. Pat makes another good point with FWD vs RWD, I think this should be taken into account more so than the suspension factor currently in place. 200hp to the front wheels vs 200hp to the rears makes one hell of a difference. Most of us that run independent rear suspensions run monster sway bars on the rear almost negating the effects of the independent rear end.

Just a few more things to think about

[Acura #34]

This thread is just like a race track, everyone driving in circles and not getting anywhere.
If people want to reduce costs and have fun driving lighter cars maybe there should be an option in place to run with one or two stock parts easily enforcible ie Airbox with no mods or stock exhaust manifolds and pipe sizes.If air can't get in or can't get out, well???

Also another rule should be for cars to identify their race weight on the windscreen in reverse (ie ambulance) so when you look in your mirror you know just how much weight you will be stopping up into 5!!

I'm looking forward to the meeting i'm sure there will be a lot of equally entertaining ideas presented but everyone should realize the rules have been out for a some time now and they won't be changed at any quick rate so build your cars as light as possible scale your cars to put the weight where its best suited, and save your money for tires, if you want to go fast new tires help a lot at least two new ones for every weekend.

See you at the meeting

Mike T

[GR8 Ride]

Rob,


Driver funded restrictor plates isn't going to work either. Each and every car out there is going to require different plates, as each throttle body is different. What about Bob's BMW, with 6 individual throttle bodies?

Let's not forget guys, this is regional racing, and the more complicated the rules and requrements are, the less likely drivers are going to show up. We could have a SpeedWC type of ruleset, but then we'd only get 8-10 cars per weekend. The idea isn't to necessarily win each race, but rather to have fun each race.

There also seems to be a theme floating around of punishing the fast cars so that the slower cars can keep up, and I disagree with that idea. If Mike, or Allan, or Nigel and Nicholas, or Nick want to spend money and go fast, let them; it's their money after all. And if that means they leave us behind, then so be it. We each find someone else to race with.

The advantage of a simple set of rules comes down to this: it's easier to adopt, and it's easier to enforce.

If the onus is on the drivers to slow their cars down, then you're likely to see an exodus of drivers out of the series, causing it's eventual collapse. This is what we're starting to see now, as drivers with money are being forced to spend it on slowing their cars down, so the slow cars don't feel left out.

Also, get the idea out of your head that we 'need to control laptimes'. That's not the point. The point is to balance out the front of the pack somewhat, such that success comes with a penalty, and hopefully making it harder to dominate a series.

I mentioned my idea simply as grounds for thought, not as a serious proposal. However, it's not any more or less silly than anything else that's come out here so far.

To be honest, I like the ruleset that we started with in 2003. I think that (as it tailored weights to specific cars, instead of a generic calculator), plus reward weight, makes the most overall sense.

Also, I think the rule 'team' needs to be a committee (ala Solo 1), instead of determined by a single person.


Pat

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by GR8 Ride
Driver funded restrictor plates isn't going to work either. Each and every car out there is going to require different plates, as each throttle body is different. What about Bob's BMW, with 6 individual throttle bodies?

Sure they will. If you want to balance the field, with only a few simple rules - that doesn't involve dictating what CR, cams, flywheels, headers, exhausts, etc people can run, then the options are very limited. That will work better than some people bolting 400# to their car and then carrying another 200# of rewards weight by the end of a season. You can spend all you want. If you want to put 100k$ in your car, I'm sure that the series can force you to put a small enough straw on the car to make sure that you don't go faster than 1m35s.

I have individual throttles too - the solution is simple. it's called a sealed airbox. They're available. And if you don't like the ones that are out there, make your own - not hard. And then attach your restrictor on to the opening.

There also seems to be a theme floating around of punishing the fast cars so that the slower cars can keep up, and I disagree with that idea. If Mike, or Allan, or Nigel and Nicholas, or Nick want to spend money and go fast, let them; it's their money after all. And if that means they leave us behind, then so be it. We each find someone else to race with.

The advantage of a simple set of rules comes down to this: it's easier to adopt, and it's easier to enforce.

Racing without balance isn't racing. And the current rules aren't simple? I don't think they can be made more simple! There's nothing to enforce other than weight right now - restrictor plates would be very easy to enforce. Especially because you only have to really worry about the top 10 finishers every race anyways.

Also, get the idea out of your head that we 'need to control laptimes'. That's not the point. The point is to balance out the front of the pack somewhat, such that success comes with a penalty, and hopefully making it harder to dominate a series.

'Control laptimes' vs 'balance out the front of the pack'. I'm not seeing the difference. Balancing a pack of different cars requires controlling laptimes. And your point is?

[slucas]

Control of lap times is keeping a lid on the fastest lap time, ie; no body goes faster than 1:35.00. Balancing lap times is making cars competitive with each other while letting them go as fast as they can.
That's Pat's point, and I agree with him.

[rmicroys]

balance and/or control can be easily obtained with just weights and restrictors. That's all. I'm done here. See you guys in May.

[KENSAI-R]

So what about driver ability, some drivers are just faster than others. There's all this talk about the front end of the field is spending truck loads of money. Money buys power correct, I must point out that the last 3 race weekends, we did not have the fastest car down the straights, there was probally 5 or more touring class cars with more straight line speed. We only had 189hp for those races (approx 20-25hp more than stock), but still won 5 out of 6 races. Its not always about spending the big bucks on the motor, sure its a big factor but driver ability is priceless.