Pros & Cons of All-up FF Weight Minimum Please???

[dikko]

I think it was Eddie Moore who was leading a campaign for the implementation of an all-up (driver + car) weight MINIMUM for Formula Fords. Can anyone give me a brief overview of the reasons against this form of trying to make the formula more even? I guess it's right in principle but difficult to rule - is this correct or are there more subtle (or even obvious!) reasons to think about?

[itsonlyme]

diz tried it a few years ago when he was organising formula e.

i take it that the 'fatter/heavier' drivers are in favour of this new rule, but what happens if a driver is 20+ stone (which happened in formula e days, and he still won races with the regs as they are now) does the new car + driver weight limit have to suit him or is it just to suit the 'slightly' overweight drivers who think 2kg's saved on weight will gain them 3 seconds per lap?
i agree, in general it would even things out a bit but you cannot accomodate everybody.

[heel'n'toe-no]

I disagree a little, as I would say that this does accomodate all. Everyone can add weight to their car if they're under weight. What this would do is even the playing field and slow down the smaller built drivers (normally youngsters) that are most certainly getting an advantage as the regs stand.

It would stop a lot of the talk of young "superstars in the making" coming in to the formula weighing under 8 stone and looking quick. Move them out of FF1600 and some of these young "chargers" would get a rude awakening when they try to repeat their speed and success in a championship that does take car + driver weight in to consideration. At such an impressionable age it wouldn't take long for disillutionment to set in and the young drivers male or female to find other ways of getting their fun. ....you know what I'm getting at, they're teenagers afterall.

Of course, I'm definately up for this Car + Driver weight thingy because I'm 13.5 stone and can do with all the help I can get in that department.

Even if the regs changed, however, the lighter drivers would still have a slight advantage as they can position the weight very low down in the car and where ever they want to balance the car out better. Me.....I have to carry my weight around my belly as usual.

[dikko]

To the Everton er, non-supporter (and me a Breck Road scally), I suppose it could have been that a 20 stone winner either had a very, very, light car or he had so much talent he should have been World Champion and maybe should have been given the chance of competing against the lightweights on an equal basis. 20 Stone is, in fact a little bit above an average figure that could be in question...
It's just that I wonder that the future of Formula Ford racing could be jeopordized if the rules stay as they are. Especially so when it seems the new generation of bigger and the main point for FF racing, heavier, youngsters are being accommodated by manufacturers like Caterham (& co) and are addressing this by actually making their cars bigger to survive in the market place . Minis ain't minis too.
How many young karters being nurtured (and well nourished) into the next stage up of racing find that they are no longer competitive and give up because they've grown into what is now a normal 12-15 stone adult and the rules suit a light driver?
I just think we should consider these things now before we need to panic.
One of those things are an all-up weight minimum that is fair....but what is fair?
Without encouraging obesity (heel-n-toe, no reflection on you) what addition of weight should be considered if rules went down this path? 14 stone?

[JNWRF01]

I always thought the FF Zetec rules - which allows c.80kgs for the driver - to be the fairest. c500kgs for both car and driver would be pretty fair I would have thought for FF1600?

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by itsonlyme

diz tried it a few years ago when he was organising formula e.

i take it that the 'fatter/heavier' drivers are in favour of this new rule, but what happens if a driver is 20+ stone (which happened in formula e days, and he still won races with the regs as they are now) does the new car + driver weight limit have to suit him or is it just to suit the 'slightly' overweight drivers who think 2kg's saved on weight will gain them 3 seconds per lap?
i agree, in general it would even things out a bit but you cannot accomodate everybody.

We had to add ballast to our car when we did Formula E and I ain't small ( I can't remember whether it was because of the Formula E regs or if we were right on the FF1600 weight limit). It didn't make an awful lot of difference as the only way I was going to go faster was to find some more talent!

I think I know who itsonlyme is reffering to and he had the ability required. If you are good enough it doesn't really matter what size you are although being smaller probably helps. (Dave Coyne, John Booth for example).

[Triple J Motorsport]

Originally Posted by JNWRF01

I always thought the FF Zetec rules - which allows c.80kgs for the driver - to be the fairest. c500kgs for both car and driver would be pretty fair I would have thought for FF1600?

From memory the FFZetec rules were 75KG but this has been raised to 80KG this year for Duratecs. Got to be the right way thing to do if you want to attract more "gentlemen / Clubracers" to FF1600.

[MarkG]

I assume, that if weight is critical in cars with heaps of power, ie, F1, then surely extra weight in cars with low power, such as FF1600, is even more critical?? It must surely be more difficult for a 13-stone driver to achieve the same lap times as a 9-stone driver in the same car???

[JustinDawkins]

it makes sense - cue light drivers opposed (or fathers of light drivers)

[Alan Raine]

The guy who owned my original PRS before me was very short (below 5ft) and had to have special pedal extensions made. I couldn't get in the car until I moved the pedals back about 6 to 9 inches.

Being short proved very useful as he flipped at Silverstone and broke the roll hoop off. Ok he ended up in hospital for a week but he got away with it because he was very small.

He later drove the works Pacer and was one of the few people who could make them go quickly, after being made to run within the rules (they were caught cheating and were never the same again). He always reckoned that being small and light helped. Mind you he did seem to crash a lot!

[heel'n'toe-no]

Originally Posted by JustinDawkins

it makes sense - cue light drivers opposed (or fathers of light drivers)

I've been waiting for comments from the "slight of build" but as yet - nothing is coming.......hmmmm..........perhaps this might be a good time to ask the BRSCC if they would entertain the idea of the 500kg minimum as there doesn't appear to be much opposition.

Diz - What dya think?? Will Kevin go for it and give fatties like me at least a half chance

[heel'n'toe-no]

Plus I need all the incentives I can get my hands on to diet down to 80Kg

[Ian Sowman]

There was a vote on it a couple of years ago and it didn't get passed.

[heel'n'toe-no]

Who was able to vote Ian and what was the oppositions reasoning?

[Redracer77]

It would be interesting to see what a difference it would make in a test day with the lighter drivers doing a session as normal and then adding some ballast. I personally think there are more importantant things to change before this, even though I am one of the heavier drivers. The quick drivers will always be quick. Malcolm Barfoot and Justin Dawkins proved that the larger driver can mix it at the front.

[FFmygale]

I agree with Redracer - weight is far from being the significant factor in making someone quick or not.

What annoys me on this issue is that everyone driver knew the rules regarding weight limits before they entered FF1600 or Zetec - in which case why now complain in an attempt to get the rules changed? In many sports there are people competing with others who are of a more 'optimal' physical structure for that particular sport.......eg. I don't think I have ever heard of a 6ft tall person taking up basket ball and then complaining that the baskets should be lowered as the rules are favouring the players nearer the 7ft mark or those with longer arms or whatever the excuse may be! - it just wouldn't happen. Invariably (at amateur level atleast) people participate in sports that they are passionate about, and I believe that most people are racing FF as this is their passion - not because they have made a conscious effort to determine the sport most suited to their individual physical attributes.

And before you ask ....... yes I am a skinny little siht!

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by heel'n'toe-no

Who was able to vote Ian and what was the oppositions reasoning?

All registered BRSCC drivers as I recall.

[Ian Sowman]

I think FFmygale has it exactly right, really. It isn't that different a situation to the people who move close to Castle Combe and then complain about the noise in some respects.

[Walshy]

Go on.....Admit it. You were waiting for me to comment on this.

When it did go to the vote a couple of seasons ago, I actually voted not to have ballast in the car. Just for the very fact that it can be dangerous having loose lumps of lead in the car if you have a bump.

Also, it's up to me to come down in weight to these lighter drivers. Not the rules to be changed to bring them up to me!

True at 6ft and 17stone, I am never gonna be a 10stone jockey, but how much of a difference does it really make. Don't get me wrong, I am trying my best to close the gap, but I have had some lightening starts (s'cuse the pun) this season and as a couple of fellow drivers have alluded to, could it be I get the power down better with the weight. One of the principal things though is having a car on the weight. Mine is on the nail. 420Kg. I have seen cars coming in on the scales at over 440Kg's due to add on's and repaired bodywork. Drivers carrying excessive fuel etc.

A lightened drive train makes all the difference too, but that's another story.........

[dikko]

FFmygale is on the wrong t(r)ack, my original concerns are that FF is a formula that deliberately sets out to be even so if a new generation of youngsters are unsuitable through no fault of their own apart from a good diet to race them FF will be no more. Except maybe for a few light-of-frame types. The facts are there that a greater percentage of the next generation are bigger than their Dads. Tin-tops might be more suitable FFs not...unless they are made suitable...

[diz]

See
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...=FF1600+weight
and
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...3&page=1&pp=15
and
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...=FF1600+weight
for past opinions on the weight issue

[MarkG]

True Chris, but those drivers would probably go even quicker if not penalised by weight. And Justin, I have no idea how heavy you are, so this is not a personal observation Basically, it's physics, and no one can convince me that lighter drivers don't have an advantage.

[Triple J Motorsport]

Originally Posted by Walshy

Go on.....Admit it. You were waiting for me to comment on this.

When it did go to the vote a couple of seasons ago, I actually voted not to have ballast in the car. Just for the very fact that it can be dangerous having loose lumps of lead in the car if you have a bump.

Also, it's up to me to come down in weight to these lighter drivers. Not the rules to be changed to bring them up to me!

True at 6ft and 17stone, I am never gonna be a 10stone jockey, but how much of a difference does it really make. Don't get me wrong, I am trying my best to close the gap, but I have had some lightening starts (s'cuse the pun) this season and as a couple of fellow drivers have alluded to, could it be I get the power down better with the weight. One of the principal things though is having a car on the weight. Mine is on the nail. 420Kg. I have seen cars coming in on the scales at over 440Kg's due to add on's and repaired bodywork. Drivers carrying excessive fuel etc.

A lightened drive train makes all the difference too, but that's another story.........

You might get less wheel spin with extra weight but mass is squared I think in formula for acceleration and you are giving away about 9 stone to FFMygale when he was at his lightest I quess.

The 5'8" 8 stone drivers will argue for no weight limit the 6' 14 stone drivers will. The fact is FF1600 is the only FF with no limit and it does make a speed difference and put off would be "gentleman / club" drivers racing FF1600.

[Triple J Motorsport]

Originally Posted by Walshy

Go on.....Admit it. You were waiting for me to comment on this.

When it did go to the vote a couple of seasons ago, I actually voted not to have ballast in the car. Just for the very fact that it can be dangerous having loose lumps of lead in the car if you have a bump.

Also, it's up to me to come down in weight to these lighter drivers. Not the rules to be changed to bring them up to me!

True at 6ft and 17stone, I am never gonna be a 10stone jockey, but how much of a difference does it really make. Don't get me wrong, I am trying my best to close the gap, but I have had some lightening starts (s'cuse the pun) this season and as a couple of fellow drivers have alluded to, could it be I get the power down better with the weight. One of the principal things though is having a car on the weight. Mine is on the nail. 420Kg. I have seen cars coming in on the scales at over 440Kg's due to add on's and repaired bodywork. Drivers carrying excessive fuel etc.

A lightened drive train makes all the difference too, but that's another story.........

All ballast has to be bolted in place so is a safer weight than most battery installations.

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by RayFF

All ballast has to be bolted in place so is a safer weight than most battery installations.

We had a very thick piece of steel plate that was bolted to the floor.