To: aaron@speedventures.net
Subject: RE: Putting and END to Balast and Weight Penalty Discussions
 


From: Aaron Bitterman Speed
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 11:15 AM
To:  Participants
 
Subject: Putting and END to Balast and Weight Penalty Discussions

Well,
 
Either way we're looking at something between 0.017 (from a fatty) and 0.023 (from a skinny) per pound, we could just average the two to get 0.02 sec/lb under or over 192#.
 
I actually think that's fair.  BUT, since I'm a fatty, and am making the executive decisions, I say we go with the more favorable number (to the skinnies) 0.017, so I'm not seen as slanting this in my favor.  Frankly, I could go either way on this since I'm MOSTLY worried about the guys who weigh more than, or as much as, me anyway (Will, Rylan, James) the more I think about it.  I'm not saying I"m not also worried about some of the skinnies (Richard, Rhoades, Chen, Hayashi), but the prospect of giving up 0.25 seconds to Will doesn't exactly make me happy given that he's my pick to win it anyway.  Considering that, in fact, I would vote to make it the 0.01s that he himself (the fattest of all - Dr. Rauch) proposed.  If the fattest fatty proposed 0.01s, then we can all feel pretty fat and happy with that.  Then I'd only have to give up 0.15s to him, which I might have a chance of covering.
 
Does anyone object to this?  And I mean legitimately and seriously object.  I won't consider anything other than legitimate and serious objections.  As to what consititutes a legitimate and serious objection... well, let's just say I know one when I see one.
 
For my part, I think it's fair since we *were* all OK with the ballast idea, assuming we could actually pull it off, which we can't.  We all know weight has an effect, and this 0.01 measure is pretty conservative.  Not to mention that, personally, I'm inclined to have no weight penalty after thinking about it a little more :).  But, objectively speaking, I think it is a good idea.
 
If you don't care, don't email me.  If you care, email me and tell me why you think it's a bad idea.  But, we should decide whether we're going to actually do it or not.
 
Aaron
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig D. Oka, AIA
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:16 PM
To:  Participants 
Subject: Re: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

Actually, it does benefit the Skinnies, but not as much as you estimate.
 
More math:
 
Jim Hall karts = 200# (?)
AD = 192#
JH kart + AD = 392#
Radical + AD = 1292#
 
392/1292 = 0.303 (ratio of kart+AD compared to Radical+AD)
 
JH kart track lap time = 26 seconds
Pahrump Radical time = 145 seconds
145/26 = 5.58 (ratio of Pahrump to JH kart track lap times)
 
*  Assume 10# is worth 0.1 seconds on a 26 second lap at JH kart track.
 
Adjust for Pahrump lap:
0.1(5.58) = 0.56 seconds each 10# would be worth if a JH kart lapped Pahrump.
Or 0.56/10 = 0.056 seconds each 1# would make.
 
Adjust for Radical+AD weight:
0.056(.303) = 0.017 seconds each 1# would make in a Radical
 
As a Fatty I much prefer 0.023 seconds.  Besides, it was based upon data from a Skinney.
 
*  Based upon unsubstantiated data from JH, even though he may be a fatty.
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Bitterman
To:  Participants 
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

Well, that comes out to 0.01/lb., so things are looking better and better for the skinnies.
 
Now, Will will only have a 0.6s handicap over Rhoades and Hayashi.
 
-----Original Message-----
From:
rtxpro@mindspring.com [mailto:rtxpro@mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:39 AM
To:  Participants 
Subject: RE: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

i won the weight adjusted qualifying bonus point beating last years series champion(Jim Hall shifter kart arrive and drive race series) by adjusted 0.01 sec.
 
formula: +/- 0.1 sec for every 10lbs. over or under average weight of field. track 0.3 miles.     JH II said it is actually very accurate over many years of testing. He's a BIG guy too!!
 
http://www.jhrkartracing.com/moreinfo/raceseriesresults/Sep2002Mailer.htm
 
Charles was annoyed, the poor tiny man...........CHALK ONE UP FOR THE FATTIES!!! Oh yeah, where's the buffet!!!


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Chen
Sent: Oct 28, 2004 9:55 AM
To:  Participants 
Subject: RE: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

New challenge- fatties vs skinnies?

 

Come to think of it…with all this math going on…shouldn’t shorter guys get penalized too for having lower center of gravity???

 

Terry

 

 


From: James Gunn-Wilkinson [mailto:jgunn@genoptix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:53 PM
To:  Participants 
Subject: RE: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

 

You'd better hope all of us fat bastards are actually fat and slow vs. big and fast and coming for your skinny little ass:-)

 

-JGW

 

 


From: J.P.
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:27 PM
To:  Participants 
Subject: RE: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

Just goes to show you, you fat bastards had better lose some weight.  Not my fault you all have no willpower.

 

Grinning, ducking & running.

 

 

.:
J.P. 
http://www.gofastlab.com/s2ki/
S2000 Performance Parts and More!
:.

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig D. Oka
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:17 PM
To:  Participants 
Subject: Re: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

Okay,

 

210+227+211+207+164+165+213+163+180+215+175+152+210 = 2492

 

2492/13 = 191.7 lbs.

 

S2000 + AD = 2991.7 lbs.
Radical + AD = 1291.7 lbs.
 
2991.7/1291.7 = 2.32
 
Therefore:
If 10 lbs. in an S2000 is worth 0.1 seconds, then
10 lbs. in a Radical is worth 0.1(2.32) = 0.232 seconds, or 0.0232 per pound.
 
0.0232 > 0.0231... you lost another .0001 second per pound ;-)

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: J.P . 

To:  Participants 

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:38 PM

Subject: Re: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

 

I think my head just exploded.  This nebulous AD number...what is the average of OUR drivers?

--- Original Message ---
From: "Craig D. Oka

Sent: Wed 10/27/2004 19:15
To:  Participants 

Subject: Re: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

Yeah, I'm sure I over simplified it... but I'm and f***ing Architect, not an Engineer ;-)
 
Here's some other math.  I believe Jason (a skinny) once told me that 10 lbs. is worth 1/10 second in the S2000 at Pahrump.  So...
 
S2000 = 2800 lbs.
Average Driver (AD)  = 200 lbs.
S2000 + AD = 3000 lbs.
Radical + AD = 1300 lbs.
 
3000/1300 = 2.31
 
Therefore:
If 10 lbs. in an S2000 is worth 0.1 seconds, then
10 lbs. in a Radical is worth 0.1(2.31) = 0.231 seconds, or 0.0231 per pound.
 
0.0231 is somewhat less than the Bitterman 0.03 per pound rule.  However, keep in mind that it is based on unsubstantiated data from a "Skinny"
 
;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Bitterman Speed
To:  Participants 

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 6:47 PM
Subject: RE: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

Now there's some math! 
 
Of course it does assume that a 0lb. car would finish a lap at the Speed of Light, which isn't exactly true, but I like his thinking!

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig D. Oka
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 6:20 PM
To:  Participants 

Subject: Re: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)


Radical = 1100 lbs.
 
Average Driver = 200 lbs.
 
1100 + 200 = 1300 lbs.
 
1/1300 = .00077
 
00077(100) = 077% difference each pound added or subtracted makes to the total vehicle/driver weight.
 
Average lap of Pahrump in SR3 Radical = 1:45 (?) = 105 seconds.
 
105(.00077) = 0.08 seconds for each pound.
 
Being the kind and generous guy he is, Aaron used 0.03 seconds for each pound.

----- Original Message -----
From: J.P.
To:  Participants 

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: SVRC Ballast Plan? (Go Fatties!)

Where was the math for determining that time penalty which I'm completely against btw?
 
 

:
J.P. Kleinhaus
http://www.gofastlab.com/s2ki/
S2000 Performance Parts and More!
:.