Sports Sedan racing weights

[Toyzda]

Ok Ricey.

Precisely on topic, I think its a fair idea to have a linear scale for weights. But your graph shows a slight advantage to 4500cc cars under the current rules. Do you think 4500cc cars have any advantage over the 6L cars on the track?

Is it worth changing to a linear weight scale? Are everyones engines going to have to be measured and sealed by tech inspectors prior to competition? Or will be honor system still be in effect?

Personally i don't see the few tens of kg's here and there will ever make much of a difference. I wouldn't think many of the newer cars these days would be on weight never lone running ballast. But if you had a car that was on the minimum cc side of a weight bracket, then the linear rule would be beneficial. I can only see organisers and officials of meetings having issues with the linear rule, not competitors.

M

[Ricey88]

Ok Ricey.

Precisely on topic, I think its a fair idea to have a linear scale for weights.

Glad we agree on that

But your graph shows a slight advantage to 4500cc cars under the current rules. Do you think 4500cc cars have any advantage over the 6L cars on the track?

Are you serious

Is it worth changing to a linear weight scale?

I think so

Are everyones engines going to have to be measured and sealed by tech inspectors prior to competition? Or will be honor system still be in effect?

So what has the proposed change got to do with engine sealing.?????
What even made you think of it ?

Personally i don't see the few tens of kg's here and there will ever make much of a difference. I wouldn't think many of the newer cars these days would be on weight never lone running ballast. But if you had a car that was on the minimum cc side of a weight bracket, then the linear rule would be beneficial. I can only see organisers and officials of meetings having issues with the linear rule, not competitors.

M

[FalconEL]

Ian, I believe the reason Toyzda raised the engine sealing issue is that the only way to police it is to run capacity checks on cars which involves the sealing of engines.

Which means, at the time of Targeted Scrutiny or during a meeting a cc check must be done and the information logged (into the CAMS system and I believe the State ASSA or NASSA should also keep a record).

At present, it is indeed an "honesty system" in effect. I know I'm well under 6 Litres, but have no idea what any of my competitors are!!

[Toyzda]

What made me think of engine sealing, is the required engine measuring. if you give competitors a chance to run a lighter weight with less cc's, some might not be as honest in declaring the cc's their engine has. This not to say people aren't or haven't done it under the current rules, but if you are truly trying to make competition fairer for everyone then engine measuring and sealing is a must.

The u2L SS in Vic do this so everyone knows no-one is running a bigger engine than anyone else.

My point about the 4500cc being lighter than your linear scale is quite valid. What is the point of changing the weight system if there is no advantage or disadvantage with the current system?

[toranaracer]

Many, many years ago I mentioned measuring/sealing engines to confirm capacities to apply weights when this issue was once on the table for review.

Only recently have the wounds finished healing after all the knives were pulled out :p

toranaracer

[Ricey88]

What made me think of engine sealing, is the required engine measuring. if you give competitors a chance to run a lighter weight with less cc's, some might not be as honest in declaring the cc's their engine has. This not to say people aren't or haven't done it under the current rules, but if you are truly trying to make competition fairer for everyone then engine measuring and sealing is a must.

The u2L SS in Vic do this so everyone knows no-one is running a bigger engine than anyone else.

My point about the 4500cc being lighter than your linear scale is quite valid. What is the point of changing the weight system if there is no advantage or disadvantage with the current system?

Currently competitors could lie about there engine capacity by 1cc and save themselves a 100kg penalty
That doesn’t seem to have you concerned.

With the proposed scale you can still lie about the capacity of your engine and no matter what engine size
you are going to save your self .09468 kg for each cc you lie about.

I can see why someone might be tempted to lie with the current system but with the proposed scale
Why would anyone bother lying about there engine size?

Is there something stairing me in the face about this proposed Change that I am just not seeing ?????

[loser]

For what it's worth Ricey, I think your weight proposal has merit. It is much fairer and whatever was decided as the constant number, it's easily worked out for anyone.
Also, I don't see why we wouldn't want to have engines sealed? Just recently a competitor has shown enormous amounts of power, everyone is having a go suggesting that he's cheating. Whether he is or not, I could care less. To cheat you are only cheating yourself. But if the engines were sealed, we could stop whining about other people and get on with the business at hand, which is get these things on the track and race 'em. After all, that's what they're for aren't they?

[Toyzda]

Ricey,


Why are you only asking for a change for fairer competition without considering all the aspects of it? I agree that cheating can be an issue under the current rules. I agree that your linear system is a fairer way to manage capacity / weight limits. If anything your system may stop people from pushing the capacity limits and declaring the correct cc's because they will only get a few 10's of kg penalty for it. But if the rules are to change again, why not do it properly and cover all the bases?

To further that, all my "off topic" comments were hinting at maybe changing more rules to make it even fairer again...

[Ricey88]

Ricey,


Why are you only asking for a change for fairer competition without considering all the aspects of it? I agree that cheating can be an issue under the current rules. I agree that your linear system is a fairer way to manage capacity / weight limits. If anything your system may stop people from pushing the capacity limits and declaring the correct cc's because they will only get a few 10's of kg penalty for it. But if the rules are to change again, why not do it properly and cover all the bases?

To further that, all my "off topic" comments were hinting at maybe changing more rules to make it even fairer again...

Hi toyzda
All aspects are as you say worthy of discussion but I believe
the best I can hope to achieve is to chip away at the small things, a few things at a time.
At the moment I would give my weight proposal a 25% chance of it finding it way into
this years rule changes , I still believe it is a MUCH better system that what we have in place.
I do not want to confuse this topic or making it any more complicated.
Its Simple, its just a weight scale But it isn't going to create "World Peace"
Ricey

[Phast Phil]

For what it is worth I like the linear system.

In drag racing they have run a pounds per cubic inch system. Not sure if it was successful but it is similat to what Ricey is proposing I guess. In circuit racing the smaller / lightercars have an advantage in braking and cornering and with tyre wear and a linear system should be able to cope with that also.

I would think this would be a good time to up the weight in the higher cc range as nobody can currently build to the minimum weight economically and safely using non exotics.

For the arguement lets say we up the anti on a 6000cc engine to weigh in at 1200kg's. This is equivalent to .2 of a kilo for each cc. If it was linear then a 2000cc engined car would have to weigh in at 400kg's and that is ridicuously low, but if it did it should be able to keep up with a 6000cc car and have the advantage of better handling, tyre wear and bracking. So for the exercise lets say that the bottom of the weight range should be 800kg's which is close to where it is now (780 presently).

The the scale in between could be as follows based on 100cc increments (there would be some margin for error in sizing engines to the accurate cc in my opinion).

Bracket CC Kilos KG per CC
1 2000 800 0.40
2 2100 810 0.39
3 2200 820 0.37
4 2300 830 0.36
5 2400 840 0.35
6 2500 850 0.34
7 2600 860 0.33
8 2700 870 0.32
9 2800 880 0.31
10 2900 890 0.31
11 3000 900 0.30
12 3100 910 0.29
13 3200 920 0.29
14 3300 930 0.28
15 3400 940 0.28
16 3500 950 0.27
17 3600 960 0.27
18 3700 970 0.26
19 3800 980 0.26
20 3900 990 0.25
21 4000 1000 0.25
22 4100 1010 0.25
23 4200 1020 0.24
24 4300 1030 0.24
25 4400 1040 0.24
26 4500 1050 0.23
27 4600 1060 0.23
28 4700 1070 0.23
29 4800 1080 0.23
30 4900 1090 0.22
31 5000 1100 0.22
32 5100 1110 0.22
33 5200 1120 0.22
34 5300 1130 0.21
35 5400 1140 0.21
36 5500 1150 0.21
37 5600 1160 0.21
38 5700 1170 0.21
39 5800 1180 0.20
40 5900 1190 0.20
41 6000 1200 0.20

Nice and clean in my opinion and worthy of a first draft. I will check to see how close this is to Riceys proposal but I see having a weight per cc as problematic, but a weight per 100 cc as less so.