KP class

[pdy]

Bill:

One of the problems is that different cars have different fuel
capacities, and dffering fuel consumption. I maintain (right or
wrong) that since we define the weight spec as curb weight,
it is measured the same way - with a full/90% tank. Take out
your spare, and run with a ¼ tank, and you might be below
the limit. If you fill the tank and are still under - take points.

Yeah, maybe it could be clearer, but it does say curb weight,
and curb weight is defined...

[martinreinhardt]

Hmm, maybe we should have a minimum weight requirement at anytime of the race incl. driver and race suit per class. Let’s say 2920 pounds - approx 100 pounds of gas for KP

[pdy]

Anytime during the race? Better drive REALLY slow over the
corkscrew at Seca or turn six at willow. The car might not weigh
enough during that brief part of the race....

[Bob Gagnon]

If what is in the fuel tank is significant then the weight of the driver is as well.

Actually the FIA weighs all the drivers after an F1 race, they actually get onto the car scale and weigh themselves with suit on and helmet in hand. This is added to the cars weight at the end of the race.

Driver weight is something we can determine and correct for and is applicable no matter what the car weighs.

Weight on the tire contact patches is weight no matter where it comes from. Driver weight is offset from the midline, perhaps making it more penalizing than fuel weight.

Given the influence of options etc. the published weight can be off a fair amount and not many of us *know* what our cars weigh with a 90% fuel tank to begin with.

This implies we should weigh our cars with a full tank, all fluids full, spare tools and manuals and correct for 10% of fuel tank capacity subtracting at 6.25 pounds per gallon.

This determines your personal cars curb weight. Those with options that increase the weight over the minimum stated in the rules would be allowed to remove the spare, etc. to get down to minimum curb weight offsetting the added weight of their options. Ideally in my mind (since I am fat) the driver weight would be included as well.

From this point I don't think fuel should be taken into consideration, its uncontrollable and if you choose to run your car with a full or near empty tank that is your decision.

[bibbetson]

Bill:

One of the problems is that different cars have different fuel
capacities, and dffering fuel consumption. I maintain (right or
wrong) that since we define the weight spec as curb weight,
it is measured the same way - with a full/90% tank. Take out
your spare, and run with a ¼ tank, and you might be below
the limit. If you fill the tank and are still under - take points.

Yeah, maybe it could be clearer, but it does say curb weight,
and curb weight is defined...

I'm missing something. I agree that curb weight is very well defined. So when I measure my car for "curb weight" I should fill my tank, add my spare, jack and sunroof (for AX's) to get my curb weight as per its definition. I shouldn't just add the gas as that isn't the total formula for curb weight. Nobody races as curb weight is defined. It's a perfect baseline to use, but it's impossible to use as the comparator as each car has different changes that can be made with different magnitudes. That's why I was recommending using "as raced with 10 gallons of fuel." It would be just as good to say "as raced with 9/10 fuel" or "full fuel" to make it a little easier to understand. So generally I am agreeing with you, I just think it needs to be defined better.

So far on this thread we are 50/50. You and David are measuring with a full tank, while Pete and I are measuring with a small fuel load. At least we are all agreeing that we should take the weight with all the stuff out.

As for the driver weight issue... I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole.

[RickK]

(Gotta help out those air cooled boys with some head games.... )

Kary, here's a headgame for you:

RickK wrote:
"I agree and that is why I am leaning towards selling my C4 and getting a 944 Turbo or Turbo S."

Whoa!

Dan, no head game there, just lost his mind, though I would get ride of the C4 and get a C2 if I were him. That could be why he is looking for something else

No head games, just looking for a car I can make more competitive. I have no problems with the C4 in general, but the Cab parts makes it heavier, less stiff and less safe on the track than a coupe. While the weight of the C4 is not a benefit I am not convinced that the AWD grip and getting the power down well does not offset that to some degree. Plus, you can't beat the economics of a 944 Turbo.

Anyhow, I blame George Lucas and the new movie for pulling me to the dark side (water cooled that is).

[martinreinhardt]

Rick,

You are right you can't beat the cost, but to be in KP, you have to get a Turbo S (2.5), 944S2 (3.0 not sure if it was imported to the US) or a 968 (3.0). On the other hand the sound of a 964 engine is so nice that you forget all the maintenace cost (well almost)

Intersting 944 site (sorry it is in french) http://www.asarus.com/

[Otto]

To add my $0.02, I agree with Paul Young's proposal about weight measurement. Basically fuel level is at the discretion of the driver based on his needs for the given event. The free 50 lbs are there for the purpose of removing spare tire, jack, mats, tools and pump. So when weighed, the fuel tank can be topped off and if the weight, without occupants, is under by more than 50 lbs from the curb weight per owners manual, point penalties start to apply. This is the same general principle that POC uses but weight allowances are more generous and they consider a standard weight of 180 lbs for the driver. That however is an additional complication that we do not need to get into.

[mnettles]

The POC competition weight is assessed as when the car exits the track at the end of the competition. Every once in a while they send every car to the scales as part of impound.

mj

[RickK]

Martin,
Nice sight (the pix anyhow, I don't read French). It's not just the maintenence costs but the costs to prepare and repair (hopefully not too often anyhow). But I do really like those 964s (mine sounds so good) and it is a tough decision. I am only 95% there so far.

[Jad]

To be in K, you need a turbo S or 968, the S2 is in J (widely available in the US, I had an 89 for awhile as does Martha). A std turbo is just as fast as a turbo S (with a few mods), so a JP turbo could run in KP and really not be at a disadvantantage or run in JP and get more ribbons for less money. (they do have to take a point or two for limited slip, but no other significant difference once they chip it.) $10K-$15K would build a very competitive KP turbo, including car, setup etc. Hard to beat that price of admission.

[David J Marguglio]

Depending on the lashing I get here, I might even add that as a proposed rule change.

Bill, the tongue lashing that you may receive would come from the rules committee. Apparently there are those, presumably in other regions, that very much dislike SDR discussing rule proposals on our forum. I think that we are supposed to propose a rule and then discuss it. I, however, am all about consensus building and I think that this forum serves as an excellent place to hash this out and come up with a rule proposal that already has the support of many that it will affect. I have already submitted a proposal on weight that dovetails into what POC has in their comp rules. Tom Tweed proposed a similar, albeit better crafted proposal last year and it was shot down. Undoubtably, we need to find a proposal that works and then throw our support behind it for it to have any hope of passing.

[Pete Millikin]

From the responses I see there are various interpretations of the weight rule. I'd like an official clarification of the rule and I'll forward a question to the rules chair.

[David J Marguglio]

Thanks Pete that would be helpful. This thread is a bit off its original topic, but I think that it is on to a very important one. I think that this idea of weight needs further clarification, justification, modification and amplification (with all deference to the Rev. Jackson). I started a thread last week on this topic and followed it up with a proposal that I by no means think is perfect, but it one way to skin this cat...I really hate cats.

[Otto]

Jad:

Jumping topics here, but I wish a JP 944 Turbo was as close in performance potential as the KP 944 Turbo S the way you describe it. The difference is not just the LSD for 2 additional points but also the smaller brakes, no ABS for the most part and smaller tires (245 against 275). If I changed these items I would be deeply into JI territory. Also the Turbo is smaller and so you would need a much greater transformation to bring it to the Turbo S specification. The only advantage of the earlier Turbos is a 100 lb curb weight differential but it doesn't nearly make up for the other differences. As such, basis our rules, the KP Turbo S has a much greater speed potential than the JP 944 T, a fact not reflected in the very slight difference in Class ratios currently expressed in the BRI Index (1.061 vs 1.058 respectively or about 0.25 seconds at Big Willow)