New thread to not take away from the positives in the Spec Racer Future thread.
Figure we have 3 years to hash this out, by then we can have several hundred pages of comments

My 2 cents.....
take a new car, new body work, new 50# lighter engine, add in "standard" 200# driver.
Weight plates should be added to equal somewhere between current 1670 and 1670 minus 50. Pick a reasonable number but I do believe it it should be lower than current 1670. (Quick and sloppy Google research say 80th pecentile is somewhere around 200-210#). As your body work gets repaired a few times some of us lighter (180#) pound drivers can remove weight plates.

I agree with Bob Breton. With reasonably clean body work and at 180# I have to add 10-20# of weights to my car (depending on region and scales) to come in at about +-1680 (my target at end of sessions). I've got Chassis #308 so it's been around the track a few times.

Now if you want to keep weight at 1670 after removing 50# from the rear, create a new legal, authorized, and optional weight location up front (depleted uranium floor pan anyone?) to get the cars closer to 50/50. If the heavies make the lights add weight to even it up, the lights will demand a better weight distribution advantage

Guess what the current avg weight of a male is today? 160, 180, 191? Answer 191 and going up as is the avg height.. Just food for thought... Also is SRF made to accommodate a 6'6" person, what is the 80th percentile of a 78" tall driver

Is this correct, moving weight lower in a car lowers the center of gravity and helps performace, so a large tall person with no weight added is at a disadvantage to a light driver with weight added to the frame? Any merit to this??

Dave you do fit, right?

With 2 gallons and 50 lbs of ballast my car now weighs 1504 lbs. (no driver)

So yes...I'd be one of the people with 100 lbs of ballast

GSR00 wrote:Guess what the current avg weight of a male is today? 160, 180, 191? Answer 191 and going up as is the avg height.. Just food for thought... Also is SRF made to accommodate a 6'6" person, what is the 80th percentile of a 78" tall driver

Is this correct, moving weight lower in a car lowers the center of gravity and helps performace, so a large tall person with no weight added is at a disadvantage to a light driver with weight added to the frame? Any merit to this??

Dave you do fit, right?

I have heard they (in some enlightened locations) are actually letting WOMEN (average 5'4", 130?) drive cars these days. Even race cars!

Don't bring me into this, I think the min. weight is fine (or too high if anything), even though I am 225. I hate loading up cars with ballast.

Dave

No fuel, no ballast new spoke wheels and tires total weight is 1462. With 198# as raced driver car is 10# light. If we could lose 50# off the back would that make the rear wheel bearings last longer?

dave wrote:I have heard they (in some enlightened locations) are actually letting WOMEN (average 5'4", 130?) drive cars these days. Even race cars!
Dave

When I went on a diet a few years back, if anyone asked what my goal weight was my answer was "1670 lbs".
I promised myself a custom Nomex suit once I had to start adding ballast to the car.

I checked with my friend Stewart Robinson here in Houston who is a 7 times Karting National Champion - he owns a race car prep shop and go kart enterprise. According to Stewart he has seen racing karts have as much as 80# of lead ballast added to a 200# chassis. So it seems to me there should be no problem adding weights to the SRF which weigh about 1400# (guess). The last vote was about 75% light guys and 25% heavy guys. So the cost to add 25#(1/2 of the new engine weight difference) lead ballast is about $65. I will be happy to pay for 3 light guys weights - and I imagine most of the other heavy guys would be willoing to do the same. So I propose we make a fund to help the light guys pay for weights and make the class more equal for more of the drivers. Getting to 100% is not feasible but surely we can get to 95% I think.

Ok seriously folks, have you not yet realized that the phrase "don't poke the bear" was created directly in relation to this topic and lovable ol' Clay Sylvester?

Denny - thanks for stirring me up more. I will add that 6 weeks ago I weighed 271# - today 242# - and trying hard to lose weight - for overall health reasons and to hopefully be better fit for racing at my advanced years of 62. At the 1990 (?) Runoffs I was the lightest SR in impound after the race at 1586# (1580 rule) and I was at about 215#. I'll never see 215# again but am trying hard to get to 225# and then I will be close to minimum weight in my car but will still advocate a rule that allows drivers up to 275# to be equal. BTW - Denny is not a light weight guy and I am guessing weighs 220# +? Most of that is his big head and very heavy fingers with which he types his novels on this site!!!

Sitting right at 220 currently, hopefully headed for 210 (yeah, like I've never said that before).
At most tracks I can come in at 1690-1695 with a couple of gallons, and that's ok with me. If I were to get under 1685 or so I would get real nervous (like "a gust of wind and I'm illegal" nervous). That nervousness might be unwarranted (I know some who strive for 1670 on the nose) but it's how I roll.
Fortunately my love of all things culinary likely precludes my reaching the 1680 mark .