#6 2600# is doable and don't think it should be changed especially for those that got early cars to be able to easily get down to weight.

#7 Either way is ok, but are we going to remove and weigh starters to make sure they are in compliance.

#8 No. I don't want to cut mine just to move weigh down to run against the guy that did.

#9 NO. I don't want to feel I'm giving up something just because I didn't pay the extra bucks for a lighter windshield. I have to replace mine and would want the lighter windshield, that tells me it's at least a perceived advantage.

#10 Yes. But if you are worried it will become "ballast" then specify dims.
Lee
Thanks for working on all of the sugessted changes.

I like the weight limit as it is (now that I am down to weight:laugh: ).

Who cares about the weight of the starter. Allow replacement starters regardless of weight. This is not a performance issue. If it is being used as "ballast", ballast goes in the passenger footwell area anyway so I see NO advantage to a heavier starter.

Yes to cutting excess metal off of the hoods.

Yes to lexan. This is not a performance issue for many of us. It is a cost issue. I now need yet another new windshield on the Red 12. The brand new one on the Gold 13 car got chipped at Miller in it's first event. We should be allowed to try them. If they are more trouble, that would be an individual choice to make. If they save money, GREAT.

Again, I just don't see this as any issue. If someone wants to put great big, heavy ones on, who cares? They would be adding weight at the wrong place. If they want ballast, it should be as close to the center line of the car as possible and not as far outside as you can get. This is not a performance issue.

Jim

#6 - No; 2600 is a good number, and it's been shown that even late cars with heavier drivers can hit it with some effort. Let's not penalize everyone by adding extra weight for no real benefit to the class.

#7 - I lean towards No on this, but I'm not sure what the real issue is as I don't think there's a shortage of OE starters. More things that can be replaced with specific limits (i.e. weight) is just more things to have to tech/enforce.

#8 - No; I can see no reason for this, and like others have said is just one more change others will have to make to keep up with those who did remove this.

#9 - No, although I recognize that there's a cost issue here. I just don't think that we want to open the door for Lexan; trying to put rules around the weight of a Lexan windshield just gives us something else to worry about for tech/compliance.

#10 - Yes, for safety with some reasonably limits to keep this from being usable for ballast.

6 vote no
7 vote no
8 vote no
9 I currently have a tearoff on new oe glass to prevent chip/crack issues. we'll see how that goes. I'm OK with lexan as well as I've done it even cheaper than glass. I suspect 3/16 is a mistake though. Many ccr's are 1/4 min, rumor has it NASA ccr may do the same soon. 3/16 lexan is too flimsy unless its a custom expensive molded one.

10 I can't see this being a problem other than ballast, many cars are deforming here, however a flat plat can slide off the jack when the jack won't roll on rough paddock surfaces

My Take

6) No 2600lbs is good

7) No I don't mind aftermarket starters, but weight? So what? There is little to be gained from using a start as ballast since the legal ballast location is very close. If we see issues may then we change.

8) No keep hood stock.

9) No to lexan (3/16 or 1/4). It will be a percieved advantage and only cost more. Lexan is not as nice some consider. Plus latest cost for glass is what $150-$250. That is not bad. Also don't replace at every little chip. Replace when it gets bad.

10) My rocker on the drivers side is deformed from some jacking about 7 years ago. Pass side is good. I think some reinforcement is good. Great point on jack slipage on a flat plate. Also there should be some limits on size and thickness. Although my concerns on ballast are limited. Remember we can alreay add ballast per the rules the passenger's floor. This is not far away.

Data point.

Saw on rennlist a guy weigh both stock and lexan on his 996
996 - stock glass 27lbs
996 1/4 Lexan = 10lbs.

Savings of 17lbs.

That is for a 996, but still I would expect something similar for 944.

15-18lbs up high is a big deal.