New Car Weights

GUMP · 01-25-2009, 04:21 PM

I have seen a couple of protests on here about the race weights that have been submitted for some of the late model cars and would love to hear some more opinions on the subject.

I will admit that the race weight for my LT1 Firebird is pretty light, but no lighter than a comparable small block 1969 Camaro. There is a ton of safety and convenience stuff on cars today that just wasn't available back then. None of it is required to run Stock, so why should it be included in the shipping weight?

What do you guys think?

Thanks,

Daren

Ed Fernandez · 01-25-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUMP

I have seen a couple of protests on here about the race weights that have been submitted for some of the late model cars and would love to hear some more opinions on the subject.

I will admit that the race weight for my LT1 Firebird is pretty light, but no lighter than a comparable small block 1969 Camaro. There is a ton of safety and convenience stuff on cars today that just wasn't available back then. None of it is required to run Stock, so why should it be included in the shipping weight?

What do you guys think?

Thanks,

Daren

Wouldn't the key word be shipping weight,as opposed to I dont need this %&it and that %&it weight?
The shipping weight on my Gremlin is 2555.Stripped down it was still a bit over what I started out with.

Ed F.

Steve Williams · 01-25-2009, 06:00 PM

Let's reinvent the wheel. It is what is and thats all that it is. You can complain until your blue in the face, but it is not going to change the fact that no matter how much people don't like the rules they still make them and no committee of racers can do squat to persuade the powers that be. Ask around I think one of the better Stock racers ever just resigned his post because his input didn't mean jack. Now thats my opinion. Like it or not it is out there.

Steve Williams

442OLDS · 01-25-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Williams

Let's reinvent the wheel. It is what is and thats all that it is. You can complain until your blue in the face, but it is not going to change the fact that no matter how much people don't like the rules they still make them and no committee of racers can do squat to persuade the powers that be. Ask around I think one of the better Stock racers ever just resigned his post because his input didn't mean jack. Now thats my opinion. Like it or not it is out there.

Steve Williams

You seem pretty upset.Is there ANOTHER new rule that I am not aware of?

George Wright · 01-25-2009, 06:36 PM

All you have to do is look at the MVMA (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) specifications. This is what all the auto companies have to submit to the Federal government prior to selling a new model. All of the GM stuff for the last 10 or 15 years is way lighter in the NHRA classification guide compared to what they submitted to the MVMA and Federal Government.

GUMP · 01-25-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Williams

Let's reinvent the wheel. It is what is and thats all that it is. You can complain until your blue in the face, but it is not going to change the fact that no matter how much people don't like the rules they still make them and no committee of racers can do squat to persuade the powers that be. Ask around I think one of the better Stock racers ever just resigned his post because his input didn't mean jack. Now thats my opinion. Like it or not it is out there.

Steve Williams

?????? I'm lost on this one!

Steve Williams · 01-25-2009, 10:08 PM

Gump-It does not matter what any of us think about shipping weights. Manufacturer submits the weight and NHRA goes by that weight (whether it is bogus or not). 442OLDS-No new rules I am aware of either, just the same old ones that get complained about for eternity and nothing good ever comes from that.
George Wright-You are correct in your statement about big discrepancies in the weights that manufacturers present to MVMA and NHRA. You know I am a GM guy and I know you are right. Good luck to you and Jimmy with your new car when you get to the track.

My point is that is has become fashionable to stir up **** about things that we have no input to change as evidenced by the success of the SRAC. The most respected names in Class racing put forth lots of effort to benefit the sportsman racer and even they couldn't get into the thick skulls of the NHRA. What does it all mean? In a nutshell it means that in the spirited posts we participate in on this site or any other site concerning class racing we don't mean **** in the big picture of NHRA Drag Racing. Nothing against any persons that post here but boy can we do some complaining about things we will never have any control of.

Just my opinion,

Steve Williams

GUMP · 01-25-2009, 10:31 PM

I for one wasn't complaining. In another thread a poster stated that, as built, the later F-Bodies weighed 3600-3700 lbs. As the original owner of a factory AC-delete, manual window, manual lock, zero option 1995 Formula, I know for a fact that that number is very high. When I first built my car I removed very little and added a mild steel roll bar and had to add 250 lbs of ballast to make E/SA weight. I also owned a no option 2003 Mustang GT it was pretty light too. Using the loaded up weight as a bench mark for a late model race car would be unfair. I also like the new Mustang "Race Car" for what it doesn't have. I think that the motor is a little out of wack, but otherwise wish that all three manufacturers would market a stripped down, no option version of their new Pony Cars with big N/A engine combinations.

Steve Williams · 01-25-2009, 11:11 PM

GUMP,

You have a PM

Tom Turner · 01-26-2009, 06:58 PM

Gump; you are fortunate to have one of the "chosen" cars and correct in wondering why the "shipping weight" portion of the rules makes little or no sense when discussing later model, heavily optioned cars. I happen to have the poster child for the latter arguement. My 96 Corvette has a shipping weight of 3215. Race ready, fuel cell full, with no ballast it weighs 2725. Anybody good at arithemetic? That's 490 lbs. When we had FI classes they were in 1lb breaks so when the one up, one down rule finally came to be, I ran it at 8lbs; no problem to make minimum with a 180lb driver. When NHRA put the FI cars back in the traditional mix, I showed up at Pomona in A/SA. Why not? I'd been running at that weight for 2 years and didn't really give any thought to the fact that in the traditional mix; the lightest class I would be allowed to run was C/SA! (what an idiot!) I think I owed nearly everyone in S/SS at least one bag of shot and we spent the entire day an part of the evening putting 336lbs back in the car. Since that time I have lobbied NHRA and had numerous discussions with Bruce Bachelder and some of the council members regarding the fact that what we need is a "racing weight" for heavily optioned cars that were not available as the "one sunvisor, no armrest, everything delete" model. Bruce's initial response to my suggestion was classic. He said: " If we were to consider your method, then why have we spent 25 years perfecting the current system?" I swallowed my verbal urge and began my search for lead shot.
Steve Williams; negative attitude and all you are correct. Things wont change because it doesn't matter to the right people. The new factory cars will get their weight breaks the same way that Gump's Firebird came to be: the right people throwing the switches: though desparately needed, it wont happen for the rank and file racer.

01-25-2009, 04:21 PM	#1
GUMP VIP Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 1,817 Likes: 2,144 Liked 2,323 Times in 546 Posts	New Car Weights I have seen a couple of protests on here about the race weights that have been submitted for some of the late model cars and would love to hear some more opinions on the subject. I will admit that the race weight for my LT1 Firebird is pretty light, but no lighter than a comparable small block 1969 Camaro. There is a ton of safety and convenience stuff on cars today that just wasn't available back then. None of it is required to run Stock, so why should it be included in the shipping weight? What do you guys think? Thanks, Daren

01-25-2009, 06:00 PM	#3
Steve Williams Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Detroit, Michigan Posts: 352 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: New Car Weights Let's reinvent the wheel. It is what is and thats all that it is. You can complain until your blue in the face, but it is not going to change the fact that no matter how much people don't like the rules they still make them and no committee of racers can do squat to persuade the powers that be. Ask around I think one of the better Stock racers ever just resigned his post because his input didn't mean jack. Now thats my opinion. Like it or not it is out there. Steve Williams

01-25-2009, 06:36 PM	#5
George Wright Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 183 Likes: 10 Liked 354 Times in 33 Posts	Re: New Car Weights All you have to do is look at the MVMA (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) specifications. This is what all the auto companies have to submit to the Federal government prior to selling a new model. All of the GM stuff for the last 10 or 15 years is way lighter in the NHRA classification guide compared to what they submitted to the MVMA and Federal Government. __________________ George Wright https://9500rpm.com

01-25-2009, 10:08 PM	#7
Steve Williams Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Detroit, Michigan Posts: 352 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: New Car Weights Gump-It does not matter what any of us think about shipping weights. Manufacturer submits the weight and NHRA goes by that weight (whether it is bogus or not). 442OLDS-No new rules I am aware of either, just the same old ones that get complained about for eternity and nothing good ever comes from that. George Wright-You are correct in your statement about big discrepancies in the weights that manufacturers present to MVMA and NHRA. You know I am a GM guy and I know you are right. Good luck to you and Jimmy with your new car when you get to the track. My point is that is has become fashionable to stir up ** about things that we have no input to change as evidenced by the success of the SRAC. The most respected names in Class racing put forth lots of effort to benefit the sportsman racer and even they couldn't get into the thick skulls of the NHRA. What does it all mean? In a nutshell it means that in the spirited posts we participate in on this site or any other site concerning class racing we don't mean ** in the big picture of NHRA Drag Racing. Nothing against any persons that post here but boy can we do some complaining about things we will never have any control of. Just my opinion, Steve Williams

01-25-2009, 10:31 PM	#8
GUMP VIP Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 1,817 Likes: 2,144 Liked 2,323 Times in 546 Posts	Re: New Car Weights I for one wasn't complaining. In another thread a poster stated that, as built, the later F-Bodies weighed 3600-3700 lbs. As the original owner of a factory AC-delete, manual window, manual lock, zero option 1995 Formula, I know for a fact that that number is very high. When I first built my car I removed very little and added a mild steel roll bar and had to add 250 lbs of ballast to make E/SA weight. I also owned a no option 2003 Mustang GT it was pretty light too. Using the loaded up weight as a bench mark for a late model race car would be unfair. I also like the new Mustang "Race Car" for what it doesn't have. I think that the motor is a little out of wack, but otherwise wish that all three manufacturers would market a stripped down, no option version of their new Pony Cars with big N/A engine combinations.

01-25-2009, 11:11 PM	#9
Steve Williams Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Detroit, Michigan Posts: 352 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: New Car Weights GUMP, You have a PM

01-26-2009, 06:58 PM	#10
Tom Turner Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Lake Tapps, Washington Posts: 137 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: New Car Weights Gump; you are fortunate to have one of the "chosen" cars and correct in wondering why the "shipping weight" portion of the rules makes little or no sense when discussing later model, heavily optioned cars. I happen to have the poster child for the latter arguement. My 96 Corvette has a shipping weight of 3215. Race ready, fuel cell full, with no ballast it weighs 2725. Anybody good at arithemetic? That's 490 lbs. When we had FI classes they were in 1lb breaks so when the one up, one down rule finally came to be, I ran it at 8lbs; no problem to make minimum with a 180lb driver. When NHRA put the FI cars back in the traditional mix, I showed up at Pomona in A/SA. Why not? I'd been running at that weight for 2 years and didn't really give any thought to the fact that in the traditional mix; the lightest class I would be allowed to run was C/SA! (what an idiot!) I think I owed nearly everyone in S/SS at least one bag of shot and we spent the entire day an part of the evening putting 336lbs back in the car. Since that time I have lobbied NHRA and had numerous discussions with Bruce Bachelder and some of the council members regarding the fact that what we need is a "racing weight" for heavily optioned cars that were not available as the "one sunvisor, no armrest, everything delete" model. Bruce's initial response to my suggestion was classic. He said: " If we were to consider your method, then why have we spent 25 years perfecting the current system?" I swallowed my verbal urge and began my search for lead shot. Steve Williams; negative attitude and all you are correct. Things wont change because it doesn't matter to the right people. The new factory cars will get their weight breaks the same way that Gump's Firebird came to be: the right people throwing the switches: though desparately needed, it wont happen for the rank and file racer.