Weight Placement

[Bill Miller]

I agree that free location is a bit much, but I think anywhere on the pass. side floor area would be fine.

 

[bldn10]

"I believe this would help front wheel drive as well as rear wheel drives."

That was the only reason given for the change in the proposed letter that started this thread.

Then we got this little tidbit: "sure would be nice if they approved it.....just in case a certain car is forced to put a significant amount of lead in a legal location" I asked if there was a "certain car" but did not get an answer. And then this: "my guess is that this would help more than just us" The implication of this is that drivers of a particular car configuration think their cars are being competitively penalized by having to put the weight in front of the seat location. All I'm saying is that if that is going to be the basis for a requested rule change, you need to be able to prove it because the Club should not change the rules just to make all cars a little faster.

Now, if we are talking safety, that's another matter. I agree that the seat mounting holes, spars, etc. would be more secure and I would support that. If you are going to write the CRB, that should be the strategy - not some vague suggestion of unfairness. "I want to be safer" is infinitely more appealing to the CRB than "I want to be faster."

 

[tom91ita]

i'll jump in and send a note also. although it does not really matter since i am making mods this year to better reinforce for the ~150 #'s I need to add.

the seat area is good except that with the rules the way they are, we will still need to add the two 1/2" bolts per 50# block. one would think that the four mounting bolts for the seat and passenger would be good but i think that there is an assumption that the seat does not actually do any stopping of the passenger in an accident because the seat belts are taking up that force. the seats and mounting are mostly just taking the static load of the weight, right? and the suspension i have in the car makes for a much more forceful ride when the metal is bolted down to metal than the softer suspension and seat cushions.

my ecu is right under the seat mounting area so i can't hardly mount anything over it without other difficulties but i'd still be willing to pen a note.

what and where are the specifics of who/where to write? is an e-mail as good as regular mail?

tia, tom

 

[mlytle]

I don't think there is anything in the rules that prevent putting factory parts back in the car. I am sure the E36 came with a nice heavy factory option electric leathe seat. The down side to making location free is that weight no longer is a equalizer. on some cars free location will make the car better.
[/b]

yup, could do that if we knew we had to weigh more when we built the cars. now a factory seat won't fit due to cage bars, fire systems, radios, etc. it is too late to add back in many of the factory parts we took off.

i'd agree with you if this was a new car being classed. it isn't. people built them to the rules that were in place at the time. some weight adding options won't work "after the fact".

Then we got this little tidbit: "sure would be nice if they approved it.....just in case a certain car is forced to put a significant amount of lead in a legal location" I asked if there was a "certain car" but did not get an answer.
[/b]

yo bill,

you have made a couple of comments to imply we are being secretive...
did ya miss the smiley at the bottom of my first email? did ya miss the avatar of an e36 its race car in my posts? does anyone on this board not know that dj10 and i drive e36's?

ain't no mystery or hidden agenda here! anyone can see that we are totally transparent....

marshall
I DRIVE AN E36! I HAVE AN OPEN AGNEDA! underprepared and poorly driven bmw's shall dominate the world!!!!

 

[lateapex911]

A point of clarification:

The timing of the proposed change, which, as I mentioned previously, seems to have "fallen thru the cracks", and was long before any E36 potential weight additions. It wasn't conceived with the E36 in mind, but rather to facilitate the addition of weight to any car that needs to add weight. The concept of utilizing the stouter construction of that area on a lot of cars has obvious benefits, and the possible change in competitive advantage that could be resultant from one type of car to another is negligible. And the cahnge would be offered category-wide.

(A note on the E36: Remember that the CRB released a statement detailing the reasons for their SIR implementation, and the addition of weight in the form of stock components was seen as a hurdle for precisely the reasons our BMW friends have stated above.)

To my eye, the downsides and unintended consequences are minimal, and the advantages great.

There have been no discussions of "free" placement, nor do I think they are needed.

 

[dj10]

A point of clarification:

The timing of the proposed change, which, as I mentioned previously, seems to have "fallen thru the cracks", and was long before any E36 potential weight additions. It wasn't conceived with the E36 in mind, but rather to facilitate the addition of weight to any car that needs to add weight. The concept of utilizing the stouter construction of that area on a lot of cars has obvious benefits, and the possible change in competitive advantage that could be resultant from one type of car to another is negligible. And the cahnge would be offered category-wide.

To my eye, the downsides and unintended consequences are minimal, and the advantages great.

There have been no discussions of "free" placement, nor do I think they are needed.
[/b]

Guys & or Gals, I want to be completely honest, If you believe it fine if not fine. I started this posted because I was told by someone one the ITAC that this exact recommendation was already sent to the CRB & for some damn reason it slipped through the cracks and was never acted upon. Without any other agenda, other than of all the recommendations I've seen sent to the CRB this one made the most common sense! Not because I drive a BMW, but because I know of the other makes that do have to carry weight. Would it of helped the BMW if it has to carry weight, yes, but it would help everyone else as much.
Last year one of the ITCA members I won't reveal his name, but his initials are Banzai240 posted pictures of his race car, it already had weight brackets welded in where the passenger, btw the was no weight in them.hehe. So I think he was expecting the CRB rule to go through. He also does not have a BMW. When I pointed it out to him, I think is response was woops, if I remember. My point is send the CRB a letter telling them you want this pushed through, not for any advantage for anyone but because it's a good common sense rule.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

DJ is right. The rule needs to be opened up, within reason - for safety. He and I talked about some issues and I did tell him that this was an item the ITAC had proactively put in from of the CRB and it got lost in the shuffle. We had a meeting last week and Darin found the original wording and resubmitted it. I would think it would get an go/no-go very quickly.

AB

 

[lateapex911]

I think Darins car is not an issue...he didn't add that expecting the rule to be changed, but I think he got the car that way...its and older car from some pro series, IIRC.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Guys & or Gals, I want to be completely honest, If you believe it fine if not fine. I started this posted because I was told by someone one the ITAC that this exact recommendation was already sent to the CRB & for some damn reason it slipped through the cracks and was never acted upon. Without any other agenda, other than of all the recommendations I've seen sent to the CRB this one made the most common sense! Not because I drive a BMW, but because I know of the other makes that do have to carry weight. Would it of helped the BMW if it has to carry weight, yes, but it would help everyone else as much.
Last year one of the ITCA members I won't reveal his name, but his initials are Banzai240 posted pictures of his race car, it already had weight brackets welded in where the passenger, btw the was no weight in them.hehe. So I think he was expecting the CRB rule to go through. He also does not have a BMW. When I pointed it out to him, I think is response was woops, if I remember. My point is send the CRB a letter telling them you want this pushed through, not for any advantage for anyone but because it's a good common sense rule.
[/b]

DJ, I will tell you this, Those brackets were welded in that car long before Banzai240 owned it.

So to ASS U ME that he welded those in thinking the rule would change would be just wrong.

 

[dj10]

DJ, I will tell you this, Those brackets were welded in that car long before Banzai240 owned it.

So to ASS U ME that he welded those in thinking the rule would change would be just wrong.
[/b]

Joe and Jake, I just thought of this as a funny story, I know his car is not the or an issue I just meant it as a funny story and a funny opinion . I was trying to make it humerous, guess I didn't do so well. sorry
Thanks AB & Darin for shooting that over to the CRB.

 

[mlytle]

DJ is right. The rule needs to be opened up, within reason - for safety. He and I talked about some issues and I did tell him that this was an item the ITAC had proactively put in from of the CRB and it got lost in the shuffle. We had a meeting last week and Darin found the original wording and resubmitted it. I would think it would get an go/no-go very quickly.

AB
[/b]

thanks ab!!

 

[dave parker]

Guys,
Weight should be added 12 to 16 ounces at a time.

Light is much more expensive.


Cheers (in the 12oz. form)
"dangerous" dave parker

 

[AntonioGG]

I'd like opinions please.

Is it better to add the weight closer to the RR corner (e.g. passenger seat) and thereby adding more weight to the RR/LF diagonal? Or is it better to add it in the footwell and with the coilovers in the same positions, you don't need as much change to balance the diagonals?

In other words, are we trying to guess at dynamic balance by making the diagonals equal or are we trying to make the static weight perfect 25% at each corner even though dynamically they may be farther off?

This is something I've struggled with in concept myself.

Thanks,

AG

 

[mlytle]

I'd like opinions please.

Is it better to add the weight closer to the RR corner (e.g. passenger seat) and thereby adding more weight to the RR/LF diagonal? Or is it better to add it in the footwell and with the coilovers in the same positions, you don't need as much change to balance the diagonals?

In other words, are we trying to guess at dynamic balance by making the diagonals equal or are we trying to make the static weight perfect 25% at each corner even though dynamically they may be farther off?

This is something I've struggled with in concept myself.

Thanks,

AG
[/b]

depends upon a number of factors. primarily the number of 12oz weights you have applied to the biomechanical devices used to corner balance the car. the result can seriously affect the dynamic balance of the chassis and the biomechanical devices.

i am going to have to struggle with this some more. hmmmm....

 

[AntonioGG]

Let's assume I've "used" plenty of 12oz weights on such mentioned bio-mechanical device and thus it is impossible to get anywhere close to 25% at each corner within the rules.