New FV Minimum Weight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veefan

I vote to keep it the same at 1025.

Changing a rule that's makes racers spend possibly $400 + to add even more weight is silly.

---

Remember - not asking anyone to vote - just want to collect information. If anyone is carrying weight to make weight - then they would be okay with the 1025.

However, some of these people have already invested in light weight bodywork, starters, and floor pans to get to that point.

Others may have the same car model, but like Greg mentioned are 20 - 40 lbs over to start.

The original intention of FV, I believe was that anyone could build a car that easily weighed around 825 lbs. At one point it was decided to weigh the driver with the car (BTW - this only happened in Indy Car recently - the Danica rule http://www.autoracingdaily.com/news/...-weight-issue/)

Buying "Lightness" is just a cost just as is buying horsepower or handling. If that cost is something that has been caused by rules changes, then the rules should to be adjusted to keep up.

I am still working on a spreadsheet to show the evolution of the weight changes. If I was going to write rules today for FV I would specify one weight for car without driver and one for one with the driver. That would minimize, but not eliminate the weight of the driver being a variable.

ChrisZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veefan

I vote to keep it the same at 1025.


Changing a rule that's makes racers spend possibly $400 + to add even more weight is silly.

---

I will sell 25 lbs of ballast to people for $100. How much do you want?

Removing weight is far more expensive than adding it. Removing 25 lbs in most cars would cost 1000s of dollars. I have a customer who is going through that now. Its just brutal. Its no wonder people walk away.

The spot price of lead was $.97/pound on Friday, (which is about double what it was a couple of years ago!)

The old adage I always go by:

Adding weight cost about $1.00 per pound

Removing weight costs about $100.00 per pound

The other one I heard:

Lead is way cheaper than titanium :D

In the late 70's I had two friends that could not be competitive in FV and left for other racing simply because of the weight issue. Both were VW/FV fans and both were very succesful in other racing. Neither were fat, just big guys. There is a reason that FV drivers were generally smaller and lighter, the rules favored them. I am not overweight at 220. I weigh within 5 pounds at the time I graduated university when I ran 5 miles every day. I am not in as good shape physically now of course, more is fat than muscle. Working out would increase my weight (I know, I've done it).

There were others that I did not know well that either left or chose not to race FV as a result of the weight penalty. Before the cars went to minimum weight car and driver I could barely be competitive on a national level. Changing to a min weight car and driver meant I could be, not at the very front, but nothing except weight changed to move me from mid pack to the back of the front. It is a significant penalty and restricts our class to the lighter guys.

As we age our hips widen. It's a fact and weight gain goes along with that. For most people it is impossible to stay at the weight of their youth. I absoulutely believe a slightly higher weight would bring more people into the class. It would take a few years of course.

We are not going to make it possible for the 260 pound guys with heavy cars to make it close enough to minimum. Adding 50 pounds will make it possible for a whole bunch of people to be competitive and consider FV. I would vote for 50 although 25 - 40 would be a big help. It is not going to make most mid pack racers move to the very front and the front guys will remain there because they are skilled. It will make it possible for someone to see that they COULD get to the front with the right program and that, IMO, is the key. If you know there is no way you can have a chance of winning you'll pick another class.

Here's a fact from US government: Avg weight of men is now 191. When FV started, the average man weighed 25 pounds less or 166. Most "National" cars can be near 1025 with 191 pound driver and no ballast. But that means HALF of men are over 191 and cannot get to 1025. Do you want half of the potential drivers to be at a disadvantage? 1040 makes the class more attractive.

If you are using the average its a mean and we don't know who is above or below. If you are using the median then 50% are above and 50% below. My guess is its neither because we don't weigh everyone or even take representative samples.

Still the the 191 figure seems pretty believable. Its even higher if you are talking about the 50+ year old cohort

Let me ask one question to the group. Chris wants the thread to be informative, so let's try to keep the responses constructive.

How much ballast would you think is unreasonable to add to a car to meet minimum weight?

"the finding of the latest Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, which shows that 63.1% of adults in the U.S. were either overweight or obese"

Add weight to the cars vs. promote good heath.

I very rarely respond to these threads, but I have to comment on this. I'm one of the despised N.E. Div. national drivers with a "tire deal" (not pertinant to this issue, but I worked endless hours for it, ran many years without it, and I'm not going to apologise for it). I run a Protoform P-2, I weigh in at approxamatly 240 lb. race ready. I do have a light weight starter, and battery. Right now I have to add 10 to 15 lbs. ballast to make weight. One big investment you can make is a set of drill bits. Use them!!! I was not even close to weight when I started, but I kept working at it. The minimum weight in this class was never a secret. I wish I'd known that instead of spending hour after hour looking to save ounces on every part. I could have just sat at my computer, and lobbied for a rule change so I wouldn't have to put forth the effort. We all have to work around some type of limitation. Possibly after this we can move on to horse racing, I'd really like to try being a jockey, but it's not fair that those guys are so light. "Ready to be crucified" Dale

John,

Chill dude :D. I just quoted on old racers adage. In that adage, I am quoting the price per pound of lead, not installing it to your specifications in your car. But I will certainly help you find lead for $1.00 per pound.

In my application, I mold it into specific forms so I can install it safely in specific locations (about 50 lbs worth). I do this myself for me (read $ 0 labor). So if you will need to contract this work out, it will cost more.

However, I still stand by the statement that lead is less money than titanimum and that adding weight is less money that removing weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Bonow

John,

Chill dude :D. I just quoted on old racers adage. In that adage, I am quoting the price per pound of lead, not installing it to your specifications in your car. But I will certainly help you find lead for $1.00 per pound.

In my application, I mold it into specific forms so I can install it safely in specific locations (about 50 lbs worth). I do this myself for me (read $ 0 labor). So if you will need to contract this work out, it will cost more.

However, I still stand by the statement that lead is less money than titanimum and that adding weight is less money that removing weight.

---

Bill, nothing aimed at you. What you said was perfectly fine. Since you thought it was me recoiling at your statement - or anyone's statement - it meant it was badly worded. Not my intention. I removed the text. I changed the two questions to one as well. Hope that works better this time.

Again, everyone seems to be looking at it from a personal view, instead of what is right for the class and assuming what people should be doing.

Some points to remember.

No everyone is mechanically inclined enough, to shart "shaving ounces"
Some people do not want to scrafice preceived "saftey"
Some don't have the time.
Some do not have the money.

Are we saying we don't want these people to race? for the most part, they do it for the fun. and chances are they are not on this forum voicing their opinion.

Problem is, there are probably more of them, then posters here.

BTW, i am the guy try to shave 50lb+ out of a lynx. And yes it is costing $1000's. Kevlar body, new floor pan, Starter... If i was the average "joe" I note be able to invest into saving 50lbs.

I could take a drill bit to the 2x4 frame rails, but at the end of the day, those rails protect my ass, why would I even think it. (my call).

It takes time and work to add or subtract weight. I certainly understand the frustration on both sides as I have done both. I am currently adding weight to my car with side impact protection because I am not comfortable with what little is there. This will also increase my weight above 1025 where I am at now. That is my choice. I would rather be safer than lighter. I would like to hear from those that are NOT racing why they are not. Is it the weight issue, the tire issue, or just that the economy is in the tank and spending money on a race weekend just isn't feasable. I would support a rule change that effectively gets more cars on the track.
Tom P

John,

I'm laughing. No problems at all. Just as you pointed out "below", things get a little tense up here. I figured it got to you a little too much. :D

Just as a general comment to all (meaning a disclaimer that this goes for any class in all form of motorsport): As for me personally, I'm not so hip on the idea of making weight at the potential cost of my personal safety. If anything, I feel light weight should be engineered, not drilled out of something already engineered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tpapem

It takes time and work to add or subtract weight. I certainly understand the frustration on both sides as I have done both. I am currently adding weight to my car with side impact protection because I am not comfortable with what little is there. This will also increase my weight above 1025 where I am at now. That is my choice. I would rather be safer than lighter. I would like to hear from those that are NOT racing why they are not. Is it the weight issue, the tire issue, or just that the economy is in the tank and spending money on a race weekend just isn't feasable. I would support a rule change that effectively gets more cars on the track.
Tom P

---

Everyone keeps asking to hear from people who are not racing if the weight difference will make them come back or not. My bet, with the exception of a very slim few most who are not racing are not on Apexspeed. Many who race already do not spend time here so it isn't likely to find many others.

There is no data that if the min. weight goes up by 25 lbs that we will add another 10% of new or old drivers coming back to the class. The fact is it seems to be a reoccuring theme that many people have listed this as one of the reasons they have left the class. Now how many people have possibly thought about joining & never did based on the min. weight? You will never be able to figure out those numbers.

Everyone needs to think what would benifit the class long term instead of looking at their current situation. I know I would be very close to min. weight or even need to add balast depending on my FV I drive & I am for adding weight to help out fellow competitors & hopefully to grow the class.

Also we keep hearing from the FST as to how they looked at FV issues 10 years ago. One of the things they addressed was making the class readily available to heavier drivers with a higher min. weight.

We all need to think what will help the class grow, not think that oh Sh*t now my competition is going to be able to keep up with me. The best will still be the best IMO.

Bam Bam is right. Those with enough time and money can probably be competitive at 1025. Increasing to 1040 would reduce time and money required. No data on how participation would hypothetically increase will ever be available. But just as lower prices usually increases demand, less time and money required will increase participation. Increased participation also increases competition. Some current participants must be OK racing against F500 and FF. I would rather compete against 25 FV's than 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bam Bam

There is no data that if the min. weight goes up by 25 lbs that we will add another 10% of new or old drivers coming back to the class. The fact is it seems to be a reoccuring theme that many people have listed this as one of the reasons they have left the class. Now how many people have possibly thought about joining & never did based on the min. weight? You will never be able to figure out those numbers.

Everyone needs to think what would benifit the class long term instead of looking at their current situation. I know I would be very close to min. weight or even need to add balast depending on my FV I drive & I am for adding weight to help out fellow competitors & hopefully to grow the class.

---

Fair enough, but you could substitute expensive tires, $1200 intake manifolds, $7000 National engines, $1500 shock packages, $3000 data systems, and a host of other things and make the same argument. Why is the focus on minimum weight rather than those other things? Not that I am advocating any of it, I'm just curious, because all of those things are potential barriers to entry or remaining in the class, and probably even more significant competition factors for most people than weight.

I guess I just don't see being 25 pounds over weight as being much more of a disadvantage or barrier than not having any of those other things that most top competitors have. If you would quit or not show up because you don't think you can make the minimum, wouldn't you be just as likely to make the same decision because you can't afford to make those other upgrades?

Barriers to entry include expensive engines and tires. That is why spec tires and restrictor plates are many times used as ways to increase participation. Time, money and talent are required to win. Many would like it to be mote about the talent.

I'm trying to figure how Dale R weighs 20 lbs more, has 20 lbs of ballast and can make weight, when I have a P2 with lots of holes, some carbon pieces and I roll across the scales 59 lbs over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt King

Why is the focus on minimum weight rather than those other things?

---

Because that is what this thread is titled to address. I have addressed other things I think can be improved in other threads. I agree with you Matt, there is more then just this but this was a discussion about one topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt King

Fair enough, but you could substitute expensive tires, $1200 intake manifolds, $7000 National engines, $1500 shock packages, $3000 data systems, and a host of other things and make the same argument. Why is the focus on minimum weight rather than those other things? Not that I am advocating any of it, I'm just curious, because all of those things are potential barriers to entry or remaining in the class, and probably even more significant competition factors for most people than weight.

I guess I just don't see being 25 pounds over weight as being much more of a disadvantage or barrier than not having any of those other things that most top competitors have. If you would quit or not show up because you don't think you can make the minimum, wouldn't you be just as likely to make the same decision because you can't afford to make those other upgrades?

---

Spec tires and changing minimum weight rule are things that can be changed with some inconvenience or small penalty to a minority, presumably for the good of the community as a whole. Those other items would be that much more difficult to "undo".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grapefarmeral

I'm trying to figure how Dale R weighs 20 lbs more, has 20 lbs of ballast and can make weight, when I have a P2 with lots of holes, some carbon pieces and I roll across the scales 59 lbs over?

---

He's more dedicated ;)

My SM1 had over 80 holes drilled in the chassis, ranging from 1" to 3". It removed 7 lbs worth of weight. When I used lighter tubing, I almost broke my legs in a crash that was not extreme. Running 1040 was as low as I could get as a 210 lb driver with a level of safety I could accept at that time.

Personally jeopardizing safety, to reduce weight is not worth it.

My P-2 has all the origional tubing, and frame rails, with the exeption of the P-3 tail section. No holes drilled in frame rails, or tubing, all tubing is the origional diamater, and wall thickness. Do not accuse me of sacraficing safety for weight! I take that personally. You could not tell my car is any lighter than another P-2 by looking at it. You wont find any titanium on my car. I can tell you how much every component weighs, and where you can save some weight on it. Do you know how much your suspension components Weigh? your backing plates, Axles? I do. I was aware from the begining of the weight challenge, and knew it would require additional effort on my part. I understand that the goal is to attract more participants, but I'm afraid it will be at the expense of reward for additional effort, or dedication. If a minimum weight rule is changed because not everyone can reach it. It Would only be fair to eliminate test days, and computer track simulators, because not everyone wants to be "bothered" to take advantage of them. Dale

Dale,

Simple math tells me your car weight is in the 770 lb to 780 lb range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D. Rader

My P-2 has all the origional tubing, and frame rails, with the exeption of the P-3 tail section. No holes drilled in frame rails, or tubing, all tubing is the origional diamater, and wall thickness. Do not accuse me of sacraficing safety for weight! I take that personally. You could not tell my car is any lighter than another P-2 by looking at it. You wont find any titanium on my car. I can tell you how much every component weighs, and where you can save some weight on it. Do you know how much your suspension components Weigh? your backing plates, Axles? I do. I was aware from the begining of the weight challenge, and knew it would require additional effort on my part. I understand that the goal is to attract more participants, but I'm afraid it will be at the expense of reward for additional effort, or dedication. If a minimum weight rule is changed because not everyone can reach it. It Would only be fair to eliminate test days, and computer track simulators, because not everyone wants to be "bothered" to take advantage of them. Dale

---

Sorry I have been away for a few hours.:D

Yes, let's keep this thread focused like a laser on weight - feel free to start another one on some other topic.

For those who have doubts about raising the weight - what if I was proposing lowering the weight to 1010 for instance. What effect would that have?
1. Cars would go faster
2. Some people would not be affected
3. More people would spend more money to get their car to minimum weight.

So logically if we raise the limit:
1. Cars would go slower
2. Some people would not be affected
3. More people would spend less money to get their car to minimum weight.

Now I am taking the view that, historically, is FV at the right weight or has it drifted from its historic norm? - I am not saying we to make it fairer in an abstract manner or should we try to make everyone competitive. But if because of rules creep, the car that was at minimum weight 20 years ago with a theoretical 185 lbs driver, now requires the lighter battery, starter, shocks, Kevlar bodywork, etc. then we need to raise the minimum weight as these things cost money, that has been mandated somehow by rules changes.

I am not at a place where I can upload my spreadsheet - hopefully it will be soon so everyone can analyse my figures and comment on them. If some one can host it, pm me with your e-mail and I will send it to you.

Thanks

ChrisZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D. Rader

My P-2 has all the origional tubing, and frame rails, with the exeption of the P-3 tail section. No holes drilled in frame rails, or tubing, all tubing is the origional diamater, and wall thickness. Do not accuse me of sacraficing safety for weight! I take that personally. You could not tell my car is any lighter than another P-2 by looking at it. You wont find any titanium on my car. I can tell you how much every component weighs, and where you can save some weight on it. Do you know how much your suspension components Weigh? your backing plates, Axles? I do. I was aware from the begining of the weight challenge, and knew it would require additional effort on my part. I understand that the goal is to attract more participants, but I'm afraid it will be at the expense of reward for additional effort, or dedication. If a minimum weight rule is changed because not everyone can reach it. It Would only be fair to eliminate test days, and computer track simulators, because not everyone wants to be "bothered" to take advantage of them. Dale

---

Its one of the few areas where some people can give up an advantage to help alot of people be more competitive. Heavier guys and people with heavier cars are at a huge disadvantage .... and will be still. Even guys, like Al Spadin bought the same model car as you, but is more than 50 lbs heavier, have this problem. Would you feel the same way if you had gotten Al's car, and he got yours. All the component selection in the world will not make up 70 lbs.

As has been pointed out many times, the gallant dedicated FV racers are dying off, and to slow the decline and perhaps even encourage growth, we are going to have to make the class accessable to regular Joes. From those regular Joes, some die-hard dedicated crazy FV lifers will emerge, but you can't recruit them. If the current crowd is going to demand such commitment, the class will continue to see all the newbies go to classes that want them.

Bill, That is correct, it varries with different gearbox, brake drums, set of rims, Etc. (I never weighed the engines, only cared about power, Probably should have) I also now have a carbon fiber helmet, so you could take off 1 to 2(?) Lbs. off my "race ready" weight. You would be suprised the difference in parts that are "The Same". I used my 2012 runoffs numbers for reference. I think we were coming across the scales at 1028/1029, I didn't want to cut it closer than that. We were in impound with a "national champion" that came across at 1026. To close for me! I obviously used my best available parts there. Im pretty sure their scales were accurate. but I have seen some pretty large variations between different tracks scales. Everyone should scale their car every race weekend if for nothing more than referance in the notebook. It's free!! Putting your car on a diet isn't that hard guys. we Should get together for Donuts, and coffee, and more donuts, and discuss it. Dale

Dale,

Donuts would not be my choice to discuss weight of the car, perhaps fresh squeezed juice would be more appropriate. I'm in the process of taking the car apart to get rid of as much weight as I can. I already have the lightweight starter, battery and some carbon pieces. I to know how much all the suspension pieces weigh, but I wonder what the difference is between the P2 and P3 rear clip? I even weighed all my wheels looking for the lightest set.

My 1982 Lynx/B weighs in post-race at 1070. I weigh 155 and could stand to lose 10+ pounds. I run a fat battery, the post-nuclear starter, and the main front and rear body panels have too much fiberglass on them. I have no problem with other cars coming in at 1025 because I know that I can work on getting car and driver weight down over a few seasons. How much, I don't know. I've looked at the Silver Bullet body at > $1k to save 20-25 pounds, but didn't bite the bullet :D ... yet I dropped way too much money on tires last season, way too much, as in, I may run only 6 - 7 weekends this year instead of the 11 weekends that we ran last year. I've got a long way to go to be a better driver, so there's another major area for improvement, and there are other incremental upgrades to enhance the car as well. So I'm good with 1025 but that may be because I'm not running up front with Anthony, Craig, Jon, Dennis, John, and the other aces. When you are racing for the checker with tenths separation, I get it. But most of us aren't there and the weight issue alone is probably not going to get us that much closer.

Now if we are going to talk about tires and tire budgets, I'm all for that thread. Cut my tire budget by 66% and we're racing a lot more. Entry fees are killer, but apparently little can be done about it on the club's side.

I think everyone realizes that weight in the class, out of all classes, is critical to being competitive. We are probably the lowest HP class so every extra lb makes a big difference. I am sure that is why some people have spent many hours working on their cars & in some cases spending many thousands of dollars to help bring down the weight. I just don't think this thinking will help encourage growth within the class when many other classes do not have this issue or have addressed it in the past.

Remember the low HP makes a HUGE difference for every lb you are overweight. What is the best direction for the class long term?

1025 is an acceptable weight. Increasing it will put added wear on tires and allow those who are already adding ballast to add even more at a desired location.

It is certainly possible for heavier drivers to make minimum. FV is not a spec class. There should be some design and development challenge in the class. It ultimatly falls on the driver to choose and purchase, or design a chassis that he will be able to meet the minimum weight in. Those who accept the challenge to design or build a car to the current rules should not be penalized by those choosing to alter the rules rather then play by them.

Reducing weight is one of the easiest things most drivers can do to improve their performance. It requires little development work and testing costs. I stand by my statement in an earlier thread that there needs to be some challenge in racing to keep people motivated....if we keep making it easy, boredom will set in for the casual racer.

This is not supposed to be easy. Maybe we can start a proposal that we all show up with our cars, then draw numbers to figure out who gets to drive what car that weekend? Seems like everyone wants racing to be fair....Isn't that the fairest way to do it?

I respectfully suggest that if Craig and I swapped cars, and he had to run my Fat Cat, he'd still school my sorry ass by 2 seconds at NHMS. I think that we are shorting the talent side.

But then again, I just finished my 3rd year in the class and what do I know? Seriously, I would default to the consensus of the veterans.

I personally like to think of FV as more of a drivers class then a development class. That is just my opinion & there is nothing wrong with someone having the complete opposite opinion.

I do not have the development capabilities myself so either I pay someone else to do them or choose not to have them done. I have spent the money on national motors & other improvements already. I am not far off weight & are not lobbying for an increase because I personally need as some others are. I am lobbying because I think it will help the class long term. I do not find that dumbing down the class.

My opinion is only there to hopefully bring new blood to the class & help save some people dollars.

Both sides (those for & those against) have valid points, I just don't see those against finding a way to attract new racers to FV.

Mike,

You're correct, it's possible for every driver to make weight at 1025. But at what
cost, and what attrition to the ranks of our already smaller FV fields. I know you
said you'd rather race against 8 hardcore racers than 30 "ave. joe's", but not
everyone feels that way. If a driver has to spend XX amount of money getting
down to near 1025, then there's obviously less $$ for entry fee's, tires and a
variety of other expenses. If I wanted to design or build a car to the current rules
instead of letting Dave Green build my Protoform, then I would have gone into
Formula Ford etc...This is suppose to be an entry level class to open wheel racing
within the SCCA, and I hope we don't lose that perspective.

Mark

92' Protoform P-2/05

I tried for three years to get my old car down close to minimum weight. Those of you that know me, know that i am in the gynm 5 days a week and put a tremendous effort into getting into "race-shape" for the season.

My old car had holes drilled in the frame. The lightest components available for everything. I even ran a 5aH battery. (Battery died - as in had to be replaced- twice on me during races in 2 years, despite using a jumper battery to start)

I struggled to get to 1043. I bought new body work for my car and saved another 2 pounds. Cost me $1500 for the bodywork and $750 to paint it.

After getting frustrated by this, I finally sold the car and built a brand new Vortech. Now I'm at minimum weight. Is this what we expect everyone else to do too? I'm sure the Jennerjahn's wouldn't mind kicking up production. :-)

I don't think that is in the spirit of the class. Even though I am now at minimum weight, I still think 1050 is a fair minimum weight.

-Those that are running ballast can now run more, in whatever location they want - Yes, and those who are not currently running ballast may be able to do the same.

-Carefully selecting parts and weighing everything can help shave off weight - Yes, it can. Many racers don't have access to 10 of everything allowing them to weigh each piece to decide what part to put on the car. I can imagine Jim Schings or Bob Lybarger (or whoever) loving getting those phone calls. "Hi, I need a new steering box. Can you weigh every steering box you have and send me the lightest one?"

-Should we ban test days, data systems, etc.? No, of course not. That would be silly and unenforceable. Plus, a $3000 data system is cheaper than trying to remove 25 pounds from an average car.

-I can't possibly add 25 pounds more to my car. - I find that hard to believe. We're talking about mounting a piece of stainless steel bar that is 1 inch thick, 4 inches wide and 24 inches long. That weighs 27.55 pounds. Cut it in half and you can sit on it if you'd like. It will cost you $152.31 from www.onlinemetals.com. Likely you can find this even cheaper.

I know change is hard for a lot of people, but if we really care about the class, then let's find a way to remove barriers of entry and increase the attractiveness of the class.

I'm glad somebody thinks its easy to get cars down to minimum weight. What was I doing for those 25 years when I spent 1000s of hrs and 1000s of dollars trying to get my car within 15 lbs of minimum? I spent more time on weight reduction than all other performance-related developments combined. My efforts, like Stephens, were way beyond what any regular racer would, could, or should have to do. Not everyone will buy a new Vortech or build their own car. Not everyone will be fortunate to buy the Protoform that is 50 lbs lighter than other seemingly identical protoforms. If those people want to race with more than themselves, they will have to give up some.

i would vote for 1050 ........my cars can make the min. weight but this would allow me to build a Safer car, or just bolt in weight.

i also believe that this would help the FV community in a whole.

In the early 60's the average height of a male between 20 -74 was 5' 8" and weight was 166 lbs. In 2002 the average height was 5' 91/2" and weight was 191. So we're taller and heavier. What was the weight minimum in 1963 compared to today and what did a top motor make in horsepower in 1963? Perhaps there is a way to compare Height/ driver weight / car weight /horsepower 1963 to 2012... just saying