View Single Post
Old 12-25-2009, 12:41 PM   #18
Chris "drooze" Wertman
VIP Member
 
Chris "drooze" Wertman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Barberton Ohio
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Fat arse stock car drivers

I would love to hear it (the story).......and your right...

FAR Part 103......I dont have to worry about the weight of my saftey gear in an ultralight......keeps people from flying naked ? No but I dont have to worry about a ballistic chute, or other items.....

They arent allowing driver changes now correct ? why not weigh driver in with safety gear ? (and a quick check on a personal scale to make sure the driver isnt packing lead plates in his shoes)

I wont say there HAS to be a reason, Im thinking there is and Im not seeing it........maybe....and maybe that needs adjusted closer to the national average.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 442OLDS View Post
Does anyone know how long the 170 pound figure has been used for a driver?
Did they account for the fact that you have to wear a helmet,harness,fire jacket,and now fire PANTS too?

What is the history of adding weight for the driver?

If your weight break is 10.5 for the F/SA class,why can't you take your horsepower rating and simply multiply it by the class weight brake?

Example:

Engine is rated at 360 horsepower.
360 X 10.5 (F/SA Weight Brake) = 3780.
PLUS 170 pounds for driver = 3950 total weight.

Why is 170 pounds added?

This might be a way to help everyone get some of their 3 tenths back on the indexes.Everyone could run 170 pounds lighter.

I think Bill Dedman has a story about the history of driver weight that he could explain here.
Chris "drooze" Wertman is offline   Reply With Quote