|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 Oct 2003, 19:06 (Ref:757343) | #51 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 271
|
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I just thought you NW chaps would be interested to know that a petition was being touted around the Brands Hatch paddock yesterday requesting that a driver weight limit be imposed for next season in FF1600. Figures quoted were 420kg car weight and minimum driver weight of 75kg. Does this mean that the North/South divide has been decided even before a wheel has turned in anger??? Over to you lot then!!!!
|
||
|
20 Oct 2003, 19:18 (Ref:757357) | #52 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,843
|
No
I have details of this counter petition. Funny how some names signed the NW one against, but now are signing Ed's in favour. Mind you, the NW one was weight and alloy bits, not weight alone. On the alloy front, all were opposed |
||
|
20 Oct 2003, 19:50 (Ref:757399) | #53 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 52
|
strange how selective things are....i was at brands all weekend.....never got asked to sign ...for or against....but then this whole joke of trying to change whatis allready well sorted has been started with just a couple of people with god knows what for motives....no i dont think we the competitor have been asked or informed ....as allways we find out here first.....just who are these people requesting the changes and why....something that seems to have been started for just a few then brought to the attention of the majorty smacks of deciet.... it aint broke so dont go there..........
|
||
|
20 Oct 2003, 20:54 (Ref:757461) | #54 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 21
|
Car and Driver Weight
Hi all,
Just to let you know that the petition was available to sign yesterday and I have to say that it was hard for me to speak with everybody and sorry if you were not asked. I had limited time on my hands. But for your information this is the text that many people agreed with: Proposed Car & Driver Combined Weight Rule Currently under discussion is a combined car and driver weight rule, which may be implemented in 2004 for the Formula Ford 1600 class. A meeting was held at Brands Hatch with the BRSCC, various team owners and interested parties on October 18th. It appears that a few individuals are very keen to obstruct this rule change that is designed purely to make racing fairer for all. Under this proposed rule, the car will still have to be 420KG or more, but the car and driver combined weight will be either 495Kg or 500KG. The idea of this rule is to make a more level playing field for 'average and heavier' drivers when competing against much lighter, smaller drivers in a low power formula. It is important to remember that FF1600 is about fair competition in relatively equal cars. The light weight drivers have a considerable advantage at the moment (0.2sec per lap per 10KG at most circuits). This situation does nothing to encourage the more mature newcomer into racing FF1600. 'I agree that a car and driver combined weight rule would be fair and good for the future of FF1600 and should be implemented in 2004.' END I have to say that I have never been in favour of changing FF1600 at all with regard to technical regulations, but have always felt that the weighing of car and driver would be fairer for all. Best regards, Ed |
||
|
20 Oct 2003, 23:57 (Ref:757622) | #55 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 7
|
I can't see what you guys are all wound up about anyway. The changes to the weight / alloy technical regs, would be just as equally unchecked as the engine capacity and cam lift/profile is at the moment. I know a "FF1600" that pulls 7500 rpm and he still hasn't been caught out. No point in having Tech regs that aren't enforced.
|
||
|
21 Oct 2003, 07:26 (Ref:757894) | #56 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 661
|
I was thinking about this last night and how many front running drivers are actually under 75kg? i can think of 2, how many overall??? is there anyone specific that this is aimed at.
|
||
__________________
Richard Misters Photography |
21 Oct 2003, 07:33 (Ref:757905) | #57 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,229
|
Lardy people with a lardy Zetec!
|
|
|
21 Oct 2003, 07:39 (Ref:757913) | #58 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 661
|
yeah but if only a couple of drivers (unless there are more?) weigh under 75 then whats the point of it? most people weigh 73kg + anyway. thats what i mean is there anyone specific this is aimed at ie, light drivers? unless im missing something? just interested thats all.
|
||
__________________
Richard Misters Photography |
21 Oct 2003, 08:00 (Ref:757931) | #59 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 99
|
Good point insider, lets seal a few engines & diffs.
On the weight issue you are right Rich most of the guys are 75/80 and signed for 75kg some were slightly under ,it would not make any difference to them,they all want a level playing field thats why we race FF1600.The only guys who would not sign were the really small guys or their mates.If it does not make any difference to performance, why are they against it? |
||
|
21 Oct 2003, 08:14 (Ref:757943) | #60 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
Looking at what most people put on the petition said they wanted 80kgs for the driver, this is 12.6 stone.
So a fair amount of drivers would be affected, and would result in a more level playing field, just what FF is all about |
||
|
21 Oct 2003, 08:17 (Ref:757944) | #61 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,229
|
The lighter drivers, of which there are quite few actually, would have to go and buy lead to put into their cars.
Where do you put say 10kgs of lead where it is safe in the event of an impact and doesn't upset the handling balance? If the Zetec drivers are so concerned about it then they should lose weight from their cars. It can and has been done. If I was to convert a Zetec, I would do it in the knowledge that it would be diifficult to get it down to th 1600 weight limit, not complain that my car was too heavy and so can we change the rules please to help me! Perhas the weight limit should be raised for zetec cars as they allegedly handle and have better traction. Now THATS unfair surely? |
|
|
21 Oct 2003, 08:38 (Ref:757960) | #62 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 99
|
Just for info KD i have converted 5 zetec cars and they all come in 419/425 kg .So where do you base your idea that zetec conversions are heavy?
|
||
|
21 Oct 2003, 08:38 (Ref:757963) | #63 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 661
|
So is it 75 or 80? i never saw it or was ask to sign one so i dont know?
I'm also interested on the point kartingdad raised about where to put the weight. ok you could install a bigger battery but mine is aleady a 30, so where would i put the ballast safely and would scrutineers be hot on this to make sure it is safe. i suppose lead under the legs is best? |
||
__________________
Richard Misters Photography |
21 Oct 2003, 09:30 (Ref:758029) | #64 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
Theres a few places, I have lead behind my seat, bolted through the floor under my knees, and a load more bolted in the nose box.
KD its not about Zetec drivers complaining, its the ones who think its unfair that they have a disadvantage to others because they are heavier. It is no big deal carrying lead in your car, and there are loads of places it can go, of course it will affect your handling at first, but you can adjust the setup to improve this. |
||
|
21 Oct 2003, 13:58 (Ref:758308) | #65 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,229
|
Oh well, I was wrong then. I thought the zetec cars were heavy. Thanks for putting me straight.
Still, I dont see why I should have to buy lead to help heavy people. Perhaps they can buy the lead for the lightweights then, after all, it's for their benefit I suppose! |
|
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:01 (Ref:758314) | #66 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 661
|
i'll start a petition with you k'dad!! anyone over 80kg chips in for lead for us 'lightweight' <12st
|
||
__________________
Richard Misters Photography |
21 Oct 2003, 14:16 (Ref:758333) | #67 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
Quote:
Why should someone who is 15stone have a disadvantage to some one who is 10stone, merely because of the way they were born or the way they are built? I take it that Stuart is less than 12.6 is he? |
|||
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:19 (Ref:758334) | #68 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,537
|
Quote:
|
||
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:20 (Ref:758337) | #69 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,229
|
Stuart who?
|
|
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:22 (Ref:758339) | #70 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
Gough
|
||
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:23 (Ref:758340) | #71 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,537
|
I never told him kd!
|
|
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:26 (Ref:758344) | #72 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,229
|
Never heard of him - are you sure its not JR? Mind you, I just notice he's offered me his brain as ballast!
|
|
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:27 (Ref:758345) | #73 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,537
|
If you used my brain you'd be well overweight.
|
|
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:31 (Ref:758350) | #74 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
It seems to me that the people who oppose the drivers minimum weight are the ones who will have to put ballast on their cars.
Its either because: You do want to loose the advantage you have? or You can't afford the lead? Which one? |
||
|
21 Oct 2003, 14:36 (Ref:758353) | #75 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 661
|
i'm still confused to who we are refering to with this advantage? which drivers are so quick because of the weight? who's against it also?
|
||
__________________
Richard Misters Photography |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NW FF1600 - Thanks for 2004 | diz | Club Level Single Seaters | 22 | 21 Sep 2004 10:39 |
What is the best kent ff1600 to have in 2004 | blue nose | Club Level Single Seaters | 112 | 22 Dec 2003 03:25 |
FF1600 Rules 2004 | JNWRF01 | National & International Single Seaters | 2 | 21 Oct 2003 08:10 |
Question fror Mulsanne Mike | JAG | Sportscar & GT Racing | 8 | 18 May 2003 16:57 |