mb893 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I even PM one of the doubters on that thread requesting I fax this data to them so they could comment, but he dismissed that instintly. If that's me, it was mostly to do with that I don't have a fax machine - and I'm so ashamed. Bit of a stumper that.... and anyway, if that's what's there, it's there (which is what I said) and I was puzzled - and thank you so much for publicizing a Private Message BTW - given the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conibear Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 and thank you so much for publicizing a Private Message BTW - given the above. I did'nt, but you just have Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb893 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I did'nt, but you just have I rest my case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick M Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Another publicised PM.... Ian, I think Blatman has succeeded in finding the words I've been looking for. It wasn't ever intended to be a witch-hunt or a public ridiculing - I was simply trying to find out *how* the low weight had been achieved because, on the face of it, it seemed remarkably low. In the end frustration took over and yes, I probably was a little less than friendly and became argumentative. But that's simply because I wanted to find out some facts. And I guess that's the important bit - until you posted the weight print out and started to give a few details about how it had been achieved it was hard to make any sort of call on whether it was right or not because there was a lot of speculation or quoted figures from third parties. I am still genuinely surprised at the weight of your car but at least it makes a little more sense now. Having looked at your weight printout and looked at the list of lighter than normal parts things start to make a little more sense. Lots of small changes can and do add up to quite a significant saving as I can confirm having done it with my own car. I echo Blatman's comments about wanting to know how it was done though - not so we could shoot it down in flames but so we could see if any of them are viable on our own cars. A lot of the things you mentioned have already been done on lots of other cars but it's nice to get new ideas. Like the nylon alternator tensioner - hadn't thought of that and you've now set my mind wondering about what else could be done using nylon rather than steel or aluminium brackets. So, apologies for any offence caused but that wasn't the intention. Yes, I carried on like a dog who wouldn't leave a bone alone but I hope you can now see why. Anyway, congrats on what seems like a nicely put together car and hope you have fun with it. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick M Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I have since received a reply to my PM to Ian and it would appear that there is a very good explanation as to why the weight of his car is as low as it is. From the information he just gave me I strongly suspect that Ian has the race chassis and bodywork which will account for a significant saving over a car with normal a chassis / bodywork. Add in the absence of a screen / heater and all the other weight saving measures listed somewhere above and all of a sudden the weight of 508kg becomes a *LOT* more understandable. So, I'll be the first to order a slice of humble pie and apologise , however in my defence it was only just now that I became aware of the light chassis / bodywork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Yup, me too. Save me a slice of that pie....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westfieldman Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 From page 12 as I belive Ian's car is about the 520kg's mark as it is not to disimilar to my car in terms of the components except for the Duratec [for now] and I have the extra weight of a CDS cage Quote IMHO, as said previously I think my car could weigh 520kg, can you accept that Yes I can as my Zetec weighs in at 541kg's The 541 is with no fuel but all the other fluids Weight losses that I know will save over the spec that my car is at now 2 more nitron dampers 4 ACB10's lighter rear wishbones [home made ones ths winter maybe] rear calipers [change to Golf ones or lighter] Change the engine to the Duratec I have in the garage waiting to be built up [money is stopping progress or lack of it] Things that add weight Dry sump instalation over the wet set up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen H Posted June 20, 2004 Author Share Posted June 20, 2004 For those not present today at Curborough, Adrians scales confirmed the weight indicated by Northampton Motorsport. Today it showed 570kg with 1/2 tank of fuel ( slightly more fuel than when weighed at N.Motorsport) This would approximately give the following weights: 557kg without fuel 583kg with a full tank (standard 26L westfield tank) Taking the assumption that 1 litre of fuel=1kg Anyone want a heater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 I had my narrow car on the scales too. With half a tank of fuel, I was disappointed to see 591Kg's, but I know for sure where the weight is, so I'll be trying to get it off, and not by eating less pies either........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studbuckle Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 After all this talk of LIGHT cars it was good to have contrast. Maverick, fully loaded with camping gear, luggage, driver, passenger, coats, cameras etc..... 980Kg. Come On, bet you can't beat that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oioi Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 is there going to be published the results of the way in and the specs people were unning at the time??? would be very interested to see this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Navin Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 980Kg. Come On, bet you can't beat that I could put mine on twice but it would still be close Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 I think there will be. Wotbox had us fill out a spec sheet, and took the weights with and without drivers, as well as making a note of how much trim the car had. I would hope to see a table or something either on here, or in the mag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Mine was 534Kg with about 10L of fuel, so about what I expected... Thanks to ACW for organising this, will be interesting to get the corner weights with & without driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 No, it won't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.