A bit more on FC weight

[Rick Kirchner]

I guess I'm kind of amazed and disappointed at the attitudes expressed in recent threads dealing with FC weight. This is the group that watched FF nearly die due to stagnation, and the only thing most guys can say about it is "don't move my cheese" (unless of course, the cheese is inside a new F1000 or F600.....) The comments about being tired of hearing the overweight complain about disadvantages was uncalled for. We're not talking grossly obese here.

As far as GT-1 goes, I had a BIG friend (6'4, 280) that actually took his driver's schools in one. But for me it's just too big and at least 3x as expensive as an FC to run. Besides, I fit safely, but snugly, in my FC. And I'll freely admit that I could just drive the car harder. But that's not the point. Potential is the point.

I was chief of tech at IRP once when one of the SRF reps rented a car to a guy that had to be 400lbs. He had to sit on top of the seat, as his butt wouldn't fit in it. His legs filled the area under the front hoop to overflowing. He was a good two inches above the roll bar, couldn't shift, couldn't turn the wheel, couldn't see the mirrors. Johnny made the rep refund the guy's rental. So there are people that shouldn't race. But not those relatively normal. I guess my point is that for maximum participation and competition, you shouldn't be handicapped by the formula.

So, instead of making a lot of emotional mumbo jumbo, here's real numbers beyond gross and driver weight.

First off, the issue of carrying extra weight in the car being a huge safety issue is pure and simple bunk. Those who believe otherwise can present data. If the car can safely carry the equivalent mass of a large driver (say Zebra’s 240lb) then it will safely carry equivalent ballast throughout its entire performance regime. It's no more a matter of ingenuity and fabrication skills than any of the whizzy bits already on the car. I'd bet a lot of the lightweight guys that are already carrying ballast have ICP calipers, aluminum CVs, small batteries, and other lightweight stuff to start with. The guy I bought my car from was very small and had purchased a lightweight 1-piece nose, oddessy battery, and then had to put 30lb of lead in the car back when the minimum was 1175!

Zebra didn't even propose a weight and it seems a few of you assumed he was suggesting a 240 lb driver design weight. As I posted earlier, the driver design weight of these cars is 165lb (I got that from Alan Cornock in the UK several years back) and the average driver weight as reported in the poll is 185lb. From the poll, only 19% or so of drivers are at or below design weight. There was something like four guys in the 135 lb class outside the poll limits. An increase to 185 would put approximately 50% above and 50% below. So, a +20 lb weight increase is not out of line. That would still make me for example, 30 lbs over in my current car.

]Now the cheapest weight reduction, and better for me, would be to take those 30lb off my a$$, but, we have to deal with realities here. 10lb, maybe, 15 on the outside, but 30 or more would require some major medical emergency. If it was easy, everyone would look like Europeans - although the easiest way to do that is to move to Europe, work shorter days, take longer vacations, and walk to most places. Let's not forget that each generation regardless of what part of the world it starts in is bigger than the last - and that doesn't mean fatter!

Looking at weight reduction analysis on my car for example:

Baseline: '94 VD FC, Avon tires, aluminum diff, penske 2-ways, Jabrock sidepod floors and stainless radiator trays, stainless header, mag uprights, 1 brass radiator and 1 AL radiator, oil cooler in sidepod, braided earls lines, LD20s all around, steel oil pan and AL valve cover (heavy but it doesn't ever leak), 3/16 AL floor (same weight as stock steel floor) I understand the later VDs are a bit heavier, which would make sense considering they are a few inches wider and 6" longer.
Current weight without driver and fuel - 1006
My weight - 215
Gear weight - 13
1 gal reserve fuel - 7

You can see that if I weighed 165 the car would be nearly spot-on 1190.

Total end of race weight - 1241
Min weight - 1190
Target weight loss - 50 lbs
Weight saving concepts (low hanging fruit e.g. easily fabricated or purchased, with significant weight savings

Item weight savings cost Cost per pound

3/16 -> 1/8 AL floor ~7lb $500 $71
ICP calipers ~17lb $800 $47
Varley -> Odessy battery ~7.5lb $130 $17
ARB adjuster delete ~3lb $0 $0
Mag bellhousing ~13lb $800 $61
AL radiator trays ~2lb $50 $25
AL radiator left side ~4lb $300 $75
AL cv joints ~4.5lb $750 $166
Tilton Lightweight Super Starter ~4lb $350 $87

Total ~62 lb $3680 ~$60

So it's realtively easy, but fairly expensive for me to make min weight @1190 for an investment of $2400 (leaving the floor as-is and not using the CV joints). At 1210, I could drop the hard to find bell and expensive starter for another $1000 savings. $1400 - that's reasonable and doable.

Other stuff (high cost or low payoff) - maybe another 16 lb total at significant cost (at least $9K), some loss of durability, reliability, and capability
Smaller shocks and springs
Fabric oil lines
Mag valve cover
AL oil pan
Plywood sidepod floors
Custom C&R radiators with built-in oil cooler
Radio delete
Jump plug delete
5" clutch
Gun Drilled Axles
Lightened rotors
Swiss Cheesed Hubs

Beyond that we have to start cheatin'
Aluminum flywheel
lightweight crank
carbon bodywork

So for an increase in cost of half the value of the car, one could carve out about 75lb total, less on a newer Van Diemen.

Weight increase analysis:

Similarly, one can see the areas where expensive whizzy bits can be replaced with stock items to get the weight up. If you are using the nose box battery position then there's space under your legs in the original battery location for 98lb of lead (240 cu in @ 708 lb/cu ft), the area under the seat has 120 cu in of space that will hold an additional 50lbs. Both areas have substantial structure to both mount and contain the ballast and it's about as low and central to the car as you can get. Using the Varley in the standard battery location is 17 lbs more than the odessy, and the nose box battery area will hold 75lbs of ballast (but one might want to make the top and bottom skins a gauge or so thicker). The area under the wing pole will hold at least 30 lb, that's where the guy I bought my car from had it. Lead is currently a buck a pound or so. So it's realtively simple to add 170 lb. But then that would assume you only weigh 10 lbs or built the worlds most flyweight Citation to start, maybe both.

So the 135lb super flyweight guys would need to put a 10x4x3 inch slab in the Varley location. That really doesn't seem too tough. I think the real issue here is that people are pissed that their high cost whizzy bits would be compromized by additional ballast (although the rotating mass reductions still apply), and then there's the usual approach to change, which lately seems to be to blow off the concept rather than back it up with data and dicuss it.

Sorry about the rant, but with the whole FF debacle over the last decade, the zetec fight, and now a bunch of new classes and rules flying fast and loose, you'd think we'd learn to engage in reasonable debate.

Soshouldn't the gold standard for discussion be would this (insert new proposal here) be good or bad for FC?

[Thomas Copeland]

Hey Rick, I'd support your weight increase change. Maybe you, the Zebra (Mr Finelli?) and I can do a combined weight increase/8x10 wheels adoption request. But duck your head, requesting any change to the class to this bunch is like declaring open season on yourself.

[Douglas Brenner]

Hey Thomas, be careful what you wish for. What excuse will you have if you can't blame your weight?! Rick Why don't you come and run in SCCA group 2 and see if you still want to put more of a handycap on a FC car..........I had more than $2400 in damages from the double national last year at Buttonwillow that wouldn't have happened if I could have not been savaged on the straights by hi HP cars.

[DaveW]

I weigh ~165 and I have ~25-lb of ballast in my car to make the 1190-lb. minimum. When the Aluminum head (rumored to be worth ~10 HP more) becomes available, it will weigh 10-20 lb less than the present cast iron head. In addition, there will be a 25-lb weight penalty to run it. That means ~40-lb more ballast (in addition to my present 20-lb) to be added to my car. Other than having the 0.090" Aluminum floor pan replaced with a stainless steel pan,it will be VERY hard to safely attach that much more ballast.

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I don't agree that the majority of FC owner/drivers should have to add weight to their cars (costs money, may be unsafe, will make the cars slower) to allow a few drivers to compete at the same weight.

I've been fighting a lack of funding all my racing career. Does that mean that it should be illegal to spend over $30,000/year to compete (I'd sure like that!)? It'll never happen! Some things will never be totally equal. That's just the nature of racing. Someone always has an advantage, and others don't. That's just the way it is, and always will be.

[Dave Belz]

First, because I have posted a number of times on Zebra's original thread - I decided to take him at his word that he was just stirring things up, so some my responses were intended to be over the top.

However, I still wouldn't support a blanket minimum weight increase in FC. In many (most?) recent applications extra weight is applied as a penalty for either outstanding performance or to counteract a possible technological advantage offered by a particular piece of equipment. I know that there are MANY drivers out there who both outweigh and outperform me on the track. Why should I be given an additional weight penalty and forced to move up to their actual on track weight simply because of my physical size? I may weigh 145 lbs. today, but I have lost at least 20 lbs. over the last several years due to lifestyle and eating habit changes. Maybe living like the Europeans would have more benefits than just a shorter work week?

According to your poll, ~54% of drivers are at or below your 185# average while ~46% are at or above average (which category did the guys who exactly weigh 185 choose?), ~19% are 20 lbs. or more under the average (and already add significant weight to meet the current minimum) while ~20% are 20 lbs. or more over the average driver weight. Why should we change the formula for the class to further penalize the group which must already add ballast to meet the current minimum? If this is a demographic popularity contest then why don't we award first place to the person at each event who is closest to (without being under ) the average weight of the participants?

There must be other options available for a person who outweighs me by 100 lbs. (wth a body mass which makes significant weight loss impractical). FM with a Renesis engine has a minimum weight of 1400 lbs..

What I might support is a minimum weight with additional weight penalties for specific unsprung and/or rotating components on a car to help with cost control (softest tires, lightened rotors, flywheels, smaller clutches, mag. wheels). That way I'm not penalized for not using certain expensive items and a heavier driver could come closer to a performance equalized minimum weight.

Dave

[S Lathrop]

VD is not the only car maker.

The minimum weight has been raised twice to accomodate the VD bunch.

We did struggle to make minimum weight when it was 1150 so the 1175 was a big relief. That did reduce cost not to try to make 1150.

If we want to have all cars weigh the same then write the rule for that out come.

If you raise the minimum weight, then for some the amount of ballast does become an issue of where to place it and how to secure it. We are facing the problem of placing nearly 50 lbs in the new Zetec. That is going to definitely be a testing issue and I can see that it will change with tires and tracks. 10 to 20 lbs is not an issue but the more ballast the bigger the issue and more money spend figuring out where it goes best.

Ballast is an issue because it concentrates a significant force that must be accomodated by the chassis. We have had instances of the ballast load cracking frame members and hastening the deterioration of the belly pan bonds. Things like this are easy to do when you are building a car but not after the car is done.

[Keith Carter]

Above average weight drivers are a minority of the class. Just try to get everyone onboard with a proposed rule which will incur slower performance, an added expense, and possibly a safety issue with our cars. It's been difficult enough to get things such as better and cheaper engine parts for our class approved which prolongs engine life and more power. Something that most everyone welcomes with open arms. I'm all for those who wish to change the world for the better when fighting an uphill battle. In fact, I admire those people since I'm one who tends to look at things and deal with them the way they are. But to lobby for a change where the odds are clearly against you, in my opinion, will fall on deaf ears.

I like basketball and am 5'7". You should have heard the NBA commissioner laugh when I asked him to lower the hoops to 7 feet so I can dunk like Shaq.

[problemchild]

Perhaps if the number of FC (and FF and FV) drivers who are heavier was proportionate to American society, these classes would not be in such decline. It is beyond my comprehension that smaller drivers are not interested in dealing with the inconvenience of more weight so that their class can be accessable to more people. That appears to be the case and that is their choice. They are the majority for obvious reasons.

After dealing with this issue for many years in FC, FF, and FV, I moved to another class which specifically markets itself as accessable to what are considered "oversized" people.

For those "oversized" people that want to race winged formula cars ..... slide down the forum to the FSCCA section. For those who want to race simpler non-winged formula cars ..... check out http://www.formula-first.org/ . As I understand it, both of these classes welcome drivers well over 200 lbs. Certainly, Formula First had "oversized" race winners and an "oversized" champion. While these classes may not be everything for everybody, they are options for those of us who want to be competitive as 200+ lb SCCA formula car racers. By co-incidence, these classes are growing! Hmmmmm?

Cheers!

[Rick Kirchner]

Above average weight drivers are a minority of the class

A Statistical impossibility if one considers the average for the class, Keith. As far as added expense, making weight is an added expense for all of us, it's just nearly two orders of magnitude cheaper to add it than subtract it, as shown above.

And call me nuts, but I think as players got substantially taller they should have changed the height of the basket. 10ft in HS, 11 in college, 12 in pros, as well as increasing the size of the court and the lane. The good guys would adapt. It would have forced some shooting, passing,and defence back into the game and make smaller players more effective again - but I digress.

Steve, I realize this looks like a VD issue. Maybe it is, maybe not. I don't have the data to say either way. I've seen other posts referring to the "politics" of the increase to 1190, and all I can say is I've been an ardent supporter of bringing sunlight into the club's decision making processes. It would be interesting to see how that ruling was made.

Dave Belz, the data still supports an increase. I should have either provided more granularity in the poll. I could take the trouble to do the interpolation and area under the curve thing, but go from 20 lbs to 15 and your point is clearly moot. The pro mazda rules states 1320lb with driver, but let's see, that's an additional 100K over the cost of my FC?

Dave W - not having seen much of the sausage being made in the AL head process, are we to believe that it will be good for about 3.5 HP (using the 7lb/hp standard)? I've heard as much as 10, which makes the ballast a good trade, and it would seem that nearly everyone that's at your level will give it a go, regardless of the ballast issues. But was there the same hue and cry regarding safety when the AL head was debated, and if so, why wasn't it heeded? A .090 AL floor - that's really ballsy - well, maybe not if you run over the wrong piece of debris! hmmmm...kevlar seat...

[Dave Belz]

You can see that if I weighed 165 the car would be nearly spot-on 1190.

Total end of race weight - 1241
Min weight - 1190
Target weight loss - 50 lbs

If you weighed 165 for a spot on 1190, I at 145 would still have to add 20 pounds of additional weight to meet minimum in your car... No matter what the required weight, I will always have to add more weight that you, and work out where is the best location for it (not necessarily a bad thing as long as it's a reasonable amount). I doubt that there is any relevance to this point, but I can't get it out of my head, so I wrote it anyway.

Your current EORW = 1241
Alum. head wt. - 15 (split Dave W. 10# - 20# guesstimate)

Pinto min w/ AL head = 1215 (1190 + 25)

net diff. w/ AL head and you at 215# = 11 pounds

Per your original post;
Varley -> Odessy battery ~7.5lb $130 $17
ARB adjuster delete ~3lb $0 $0

Certainly the aluminum head is not cheap, but if you and/or most FC competitors determine that it is necessary to remain competitive in National races, then why would you want to implement a blanket minimum base weight increase of say 35 pounds, at which point YOU would have to add 24 pounds of additional ballast if you ever install the aluminum head?

Dave

[Zebra]

Keith, if a blind chess player asked for a brale(sp) board in order to prove his mastery of chess would the competition committee refuse, auto racing is much more than weight. If you think FC ranks are growing in leaps and bounds than more power to you but it seems to me that we attract a few light weight karting guys that pass through our ranks and quickly move on never to be seen again.

Charles Finelli
Extreme novice, slow as molasses and not do to weight but would like to see a better turnout at the races

[Rick Kirchner]

Dave, it's pretty simple. If the cost for the new head is $3K as rumored and is say 15 lbs lighter, that makes the head solution the highest priced option possible - $200/lb.

[Zebra]

As for addition of weight I believe we could avoid all the ballast placing problems by requiring a min weight on the driver (add a weight belt like scuba divers) and a min weight for the car thereby avoiding all the cost of lightening the car. you engineer types tell me if weight belt is unreasonable (Incorporated maybe into the seatbelts). Just thinking out loud

Charles Finelli

[Dave Belz]

Dave, it's pretty simple. If the cost for the new head is $3K as rumored and is say 15 lbs lighter, that makes the head solution the highest priced option possible - $200/lb.

And only one modification vs. nine. I assume that there is a value for your time and labor. Your original list totals $3680 for nine modifications, I'd personally prefer a single project to nine of them. What do you want, to meet an existing minimum weight or argue cost per weight ratios to prove that whatever you have to choose is more expensive than my adding lead?

Classes exist which to not penalize a 200+ lb. driver. Classes exist which weigh the car without the driver. This is an inertia class, where mandated additional required weight carries a performance penalty for everyone. What affect do you think that would have on participation numbers?

Time to bow out of this conversation. You're not going to convince me that it's a reasonable idea for me to add 75 lbs. or more of ballast to my car.

Dave

[Charles Warner]

I find it both interesting and instructive that virtually every change wanted by whatever group and/or individual to the extant rules is touted as one that is (1) causing many racers to avoid the class, and (2) if, enacted, will immediately cause a substantial jump in class participation.

[Rick Kirchner]

Dave, you provided no data to show 75 lbs of ballast. You have the same car as I do. I find it hard to believe it's substantially lighter, so if you weigh 145, you need about 30 lb of ballast to meet min weight, or 45-50 under my proposal. If your car weighs 975 dry I'd sure like to know how you did it!

Charlie - I made no claims either way. However, I don't see how it would hurt.

I have had a number of people over the years come up to me at the track and indicate that they thought the cars were cool but there was no way that they could fit in one - again, realtively normal people and far more that ever asked me how to get started driving one.

However Charlie - as a member of a rules making body it would behoove you guys to have more data on hand when making changes than what's been done in the past. If you need a new Ouija Board let me know, my daughter has one she's putting in the next garage sale.

All I asked in this discussion was would this be good or bad for FC? (and why?) Extra credit for supporting your answer.

And if everybody went just a tad slower, then why give a damn?

[Purple Frog]

I'm certainly not a Richard Pare, Steve Lathrop, Don Stevenpiper, nor Rick Silver. They are capable of doing the math.
When they design a new car, they work with a target weight in mind. They also theorize how many G forces they can generate with their suspensions and the current tire technology. Then they design parts to fit those criteria. Rod end sizes, tubing, welds, and maybe most of all shear plates.
You start messing around with the weight and adding more load than what was designed for and systems failures can occur. We have seen it. To avoid that, they have to retrofit pieces to take up the added load, at an expense. $$$
I believe that DaveW's Citation is not the same car he took delivery of in 1995. As he has gotten progressively faster (and older, go figure) the car has gone back to be retrofitted for such things as stronger suspension fittings, and frame members.

50 lbs. may not seem like much, but when you leave the track at over 100 mph, like i did today, and head on into an embankment, that 50 lbs. creates a lot more force (do the math), and if it's ballast, you better hope it's secure.

"Wearing" the ballast sounds like the craziest idea I've heard today. Think what that will do to you in a high G impact. "Well, doc, he did have on that 40 pound weight belt when he hit the wall..."

If the goal is to make FC more attractive, slowing it down is not the answer.

If the goal is to have winged formula car classes for "full figured" drivers, we already have two nice ones, thank you. Formula Mazda, and FSCCA.

Cole, weighing in at least 185, carrying ballast, and driving a 19 year old car, just set a new track record yesterday.

Seat time, hard work, good engineering, and good DNA makes winners... not slowing everybody else down.

[Westroc]

Purple Frog right on to your last sentence! Wearing weight! you are insane. I don't care about correctness! You can't even do this in Karts. Why because you're dead that's why. Plain and simple. In 2005 I raced with an engine with 26 races on it. Seems I won a couple races to. We have a customer I have to beg for him to lose weight instead he gained 40 and he's 18 and he's competitive. Hell I'm 54 and I can lose 20+ for the season. Why because it's important to the racing I want to do. The powers that be pulled in my entire team at M/O after qualifying. Just Westroc nobody else. I didn't get upset. Why should I. We told them what we weighed and none of the 3 of us was out more than 2 pounds. Thought it was funny actually. Do what you NEED to do. It's like life set a goal and work it backwards on how to achieve it.

[KWilliams]

I about busted a gut laughing at the weight belt. I have been in several high speed accidents and can tell you a weight belt would have likely killed me in one or two shunts. The safety topic about large amounts of weight ballast is securing the weight so that it does not damage the car in a shunt, hurt the driver or come loose and hurt a worker/spectator. With the mass concentrated, it becomes a bit more difficult to do this with an established design.

I agree that there are many SCCA classes that support a large framed guy/gal. Perhaps FC is not the class for these people if they want to meet weight. I have to conceed to the fact that I will never make it as a center for the NBA or NFL lineman. God did not make me this way.

However, the same issue remains; this is a FORMULA class. The formula is set. It is too bad the VD decided to make their car heavier and disregarded their heavier friends in the USA. In fact, I am aware of many heavier people that went to great extents to race in FC and get close to weight. They did spend some money but acheived the goal. Lew Copper for one.

I am quite sure that their are manufacturers that could build a car for a 200-230lb person. They just need your credit card to get going.

Keith

[KWilliams]

Oh, another thought. If we want to create solutions for physical differences, how about the following:

Weight Rule for FC: 1215lbs minium weight less 1 lb for each year you are over 16 years of age.

The young guys would have to be in the 1215-1210 range

I would be at 1189lbs and when I turn 60 (and I still plan on racing then), I would have to weigh 1171lbs.

Not that Dave W. needs anymore advantage.

Keith

[Zebra]

My design shop will be posting a prototype of the Finelli/Zebra weight belt.

Charles Finelli
Inventor Engineer Disney Land

[R. Pare]

Let's see.......... 50 pounds of lead strapped to your waist. a 60g crash ( very survivable, but borderline for many). 60g x 50 lb = 3000lbf.

Yea, your first sled test with you as the dummy ought to have an impact on this inane discussion!

[Dave Belz]

Rick,
There is no data. I based my last sentence on an assumption that I made in post #10 which no-one contradicted, that an out of thin air increase in minimum weight might be 35 lbs. I have 40 pounds in the car now. The only data that I need are the corner weights and impound tapes showing that with 40 additional pounds of weight in the car, I weigh something like 1195 when I come off the track.

Again; There are formula classes with heavier minimum weights, FSCCA - 1265, FM - 1350/1400. If we are to make an adjustment to the minimum weight so that it more accurately reflects current population demographics, then it should be for ALL classes. Since it is unlikely that ONLY the FC class is suffering from a lack of appeal do to perceived weight issues. What you are proposing is a weight based performance penalty for a huge percentage of SCCA's (until recently) second fastest formula car class.

We are participating in a competitive sport. It isn't easy, if it were, your local parks & rec. department would offer formula car road racing for the masses. We all make compromises. My mechanical and technical skills are significantly lacking when compared to many of you on this forum. Where I try to make up for that is in my physical preperation and conditioning. I've been lucky enough over the last several years to really focus on physical activity and make some minor adjustments to my eating habits, and as a result - I way 145 lbs. today instead of the 165 that I weighed four years ago. As I have lost weight, I have added ballast to my car. I am older than Zebra.

When I sold my Lazer FV several years ago the eventual buyer actually went on what he called the "Vee diet" because he wanted the car but he thought he couldn't fit in it. Choose your priorities. Submit your proposal. I will provide my feedback to CRB or whomever when necessary.

Dave

[Zebra]

For thos who want to see the new weight belt/helmut/hans device look at F2000 min weight increase thread page 3. Patent pending so no funny ideas.

Charles Finelli

[enjoythetrack]

Seat time, hard work, good engineering, and good DNA makes winners... not slowing everybody else down.

Purple Frog, it was great meeting you in Bedford, NH a few weeks back. Fully agree on the above points.

[Rick Kirchner]

Again; There are formula classes with heavier minimum weights, FSCCA - 1265, FM - 1350/1400. If we are to make an adjustment to the minimum weight so that it more accurately reflects current population demographics, then it should be for ALL classes. Since it is unlikely that ONLY the FC class is suffering from a lack of appeal do to perceived weight issues.

Now you are starting to get my point.

What you are proposing is a weight based performance penalty for a huge percentage of SCCA's (until recently) second fastest formula car class.

It's not like we are suddenly going to become the third fastest class

My last post, and point of all this babble, is that if the classes don't adapt to changing conditions, regardless of what those conditions are, there's only one way for the participation numbers to go.

[LAJ]

WOW!!
I leave for a long weekend to go skiing at Mt Hood and someone wants to add weight to the class??Yea we want to slow the cars down so it is even tougher to compete with all the new classes(fscca,F1000and the new Mazda) that has depleted our fields in the last few years!!!
One class F1000 has even taken a fair number of chassis out of our fields!! The reason the FC class fields have declined in numbers is not the minimum weight of the driver and chassis combined! It is because of all the other new classes and options out there!! IF YOU WANT TO TEST YOUR SELF AND NOT JUST GO OUT AND BUY A WIN WITH THE SMALL FIELDS IN OTHER CLASSES THEN FF2000 IS THE CLASS!!!!!!!!!!! The Runoffs had some of the closest racing in FC (DESPITE THE CHAOS AT THE START) !!!!
I have worked on,setup,tested and raced all kids of cars from the Indy 500 to 24 hours of Daytona ,S2000 and FF2000,FP,SSC cars since 1977. 30lbs.to 40lbs. has NEVER KEPT THE BEST DRIVER WITH THE BEST SETUP CAR FOR HIM FROM WINNING THE RACE!!PERIOD!!
If you think 30lbs to 40lbs. is your problem then work on THAT problem do not make it a problem for everyone else.
I think the way all of the newer used FF2000 Van Diemen's held there price this off season (since the Runoffs) the class will hold steady and start climbing again in numbers at the track!! The Great Lakes FC/CFC Series is one way to help keep interest and numbers out there!!

Sincerely Lee A.Jordan

Sorry Doug has to say my 2 cents worth!!

[EYERACE]

Yo Ridgecrest......with 12 pounds of ballast in the car, 175 lbs and 6 foot tall, eye did 120+ leg lifts, 120+ push ups, 120+ sit ups and 35 minutes on the eliptical while wearing sweats, ate a small, repeat small, dinner today with no lunch and only a bowl of Cheerois with strawberries and a quarter cup of sunflower seeds for breakfast and have no wish to add more ballast to my car because others have ballast not made out of lead when they get in their cars.

my lean 175 [or thereabout] pound buddy - that won the 2006 SARRC Championship, just finished during the length of the season, taking an old FF and reducing the car total by almost 80 pounds at great expense to meet minimum number and gain some competitiveness.......he would be livid if you suggested he add weight back so as to accommodate someone else......but maybe not now that i think about it.....Joe's pretty unflappable.....but anyone else in such shoes might be disagreeable