Three questions on Gen3 cars: Do you still have to use the old Renault wire harness or is the new harness all inclusive? 2nd: the new engine is lighter so will we still have the minimum 1670 weight requirement? and 3rd relates to gas. When the Gen2 engine came out 89 octane was all we needed. Now with the changes in gas chemistry, most of use are trying to get 95 or mixing 93 and 100 if 95 isn't available. The current engine controller does not have knock sensor capability but I would guess the Gen3 controller does. So are we back to 89 octane or will we still have to play the gas game?

#1 New harness
#2 way less than 1670 but TBD
#3 see http://www.specracer.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=973

The GEN3 has a new EFI harness, you still need the chassis harness or the harness from the Renault.

The weight is TBD, but my formula for it is a "New Car compete" + "2 gal of Fuel" + "230 LB driver" We are reinventing the class at this point. "IT IS TBD" it's not my sole decision to make.
I can tell you my car has newish body work, current chassis build, the new suspension parts, full data system and glass seat. If I start a 25 min session full of fuel, I cross the scales at the end around 1510 lbs I weigh 180 lb. if I started with 5 gal of fuel I could finish a 25 min session in the 1490 lb range.

I monitor knock on my car, but the ECU has no "knock control" at this point. I have asked the R&D teams to use premium unleaded, if thats 91 or 93 all the time I don't know ...unleaded is a must. The ECU runs in closed loop, leaded or even low lead fuel foul 02 sensors. Target is .88 lambda at all full throttle points...it tracks very well...I would say +/- 1% at this point on all cars I've taken data from.

Now and then I run the engine on the dyno with 85 oct, it knocks lightly. it's spec'ed at 11 to 1 compression ratio. I have not cc'ed more than one engine at this point and was very close to that number.

We are still in the middle of the R&D program, now with 10 running GEN3's, (4 or 5 more on the way) notes are being taken...I know the final decisions are not going to be easy or make 100% of you happy.

We are making good progress...

Go with 240 lb driver. Give us fat guys a chance here will ya.

The marketing guys should be looking for an "every man's car".

Adding ten pounds takes away maybe .05 seconds.
For me to lose ten pounds I'd lose 200 cheeseburgers.

Mike -Don't forget that the new frame and running gear with a 1.9 is an additional 10, maybe 20 pounds or more lighter than half the old low number cars out there. I may be wrong but that is my observation. I'm with Rick, at least give us old fat guys an even chance.

I vote for NASCAR rules: 180 lbs. sets minimum weight. Would love to run this car at 1,490...

breton wrote:I vote for NASCAR rules: 180 lbs. sets minimum weight. Would love to run this car at 1,490...

Great thinking.

Now, let's wait for Clay.

!80 seems too light and 240 seems too heavy.

The truth is out there and the solution is simple. Every driver has a physical with the SCCA and every physical has a weight, or more correctly a mass. Pick 100 active SRF drivers at random and averge their mass from their physicals and that is the number. (I am guessing 192#s.)

I do firmly believe that having people who are ligher than average adding 50#s or more to the cars to please a vociferous minority is not proper. It is also important to remember that more massive cars carry more energy at any given velocity. Compare a NASCAR car sliding thousands of feet at 180 MPH compared to an Indy car which will stop in less than half the distance. That is all due to the higher kinetic energy of the more massive NASCAR car. The farther it slides, the more likely it is to hit something or someone and when it does the more enregy that has to be absorbed upon impact. Usually by the drivers body. Heavier cars at any velocity are more dangerous than lighter cars for everyone involved, drivers, crew and corner workers. It is simple high school physics!

In my mind this is NOT a competition issue, but a huge safety issue. There are plenty of more massive drivers that I will never catch and a few lighter guys that currently can not keep up with my slow ass, but I am sure they soon will. The arguement above that 10#s represents only .05 sec. is the perfect reason to NOT add aditional mass to the cars as the the competition advantage is minor when to compared the the potential safety concerns. We wear all that safety gear so we can add mass to the car in order to hit the guardrail at a higher velocity?!?!? Stupid is as stupid does!

"thats all I got to say about that"

Lee Spuhler wrote:The truth is out there and the solution is simple. Every driver has a physical with the SCCA and every physical has a weight, or more correctly a mass. Pick 100 active SRF drivers at random and averge their mass from their physicals and that is the number. (I am guessing 192#s.)

Average means that half the participants can not make weight. I do not think that is good for a class.

Martinracing98 wrote:

Lee Spuhler wrote:The truth is out there and the solution is simple. Every driver has a physical with the SCCA and every physical has a weight, or more correctly a mass. Pick 100 active SRF drivers at random and averge their mass from their physicals and that is the number. (I am guessing 192#s.)

Average means that half the participants can not make weight. I do not think that is good for a class.

Sorry to be picky, but I think you are confusing average and median. The median would be the weight that exactly cuts a group in half. The average can be biased by outlying values. For example, imagine you have 2 drivers that weigh 140 pounds, one driver that weighs 150 pounds, and one driver that weighs 200 pounds. Their average weight is 157.5 and three of the four can make weight. The median of the sample would be 145 and only two drivers would make weight. My guess is that the distribution of weight for SRF drivers skews to the high side and that more than half of the drivers would make weight based on the average.