Ballast

George Klass · 08-17-1999, 12:47 AM

I noticed on another messageboard that a Street Renegade racer was DQ'd at Bristol for a ballast installation infraction. The reason that this happened was that this racer had too much ballast in one location.
FFW's ballast installation rules permit weight to be bolted to the floor with at least two 1/2" Grade 8 bolts per 100 lbs. This racer did have the required number of bolts, however, he had between 200 and 300 lbs. of ballast, all bolted through the floor in the spare tire well area. This is just too much weight in a fairly small area. The floor is just not strong enough. NHRA ballast installation rules demand a frame or "crossmember" to be used rather than the floor. Since Mustang chassis don't really have any crossmembers, we have permitted the weight to be attached to the floor, providing large flat washers top and bottom and the above mentioned bolts. Once you get much above 100 lbs., better weld some kind of crossmember between the rear sub frames. I hope that this clears up the problem.

Matt86GT · 08-17-1999, 12:14 PM

George,
First off, that racer is me. I posted on the NMRA BBS because I find this one quite cumbersome and at the least very user "unfriendly." You'll note, most other racers use that one, as well.

Your facts are not quite in order. Yes, after being DQ'd from S/R, I ran in S/O at more than 300# lighter. However, that was not nearly all ballast. I syphoned 10 gallons of gasoline out, removed my rear seats, and drove 90 miles home to get my plastic race buckets. Yes, I went from the "tractor pull weight" of 3440 to 3110 in just over an hour (not including trip home).

The balast that I was DQ'ed for consisted of 130# (not 200-300). As clearly described on the NMRA board, this amount was secured within the guidleines of page 27 & 28 of the FFW Rulebook. You, yourself, teched me in Atlanta, and mentioned that you thought I had come up with a great method of securing my ballast.

Also, I would like to point out that it was determined in that tech line that you could bolt your 60# battery box to the floor, but not a 25# weight. You could bolt your 24# nitrous bottle to the floor, but not a 25# weight. You could also screw bulky stereo equipment to the floor. Also determined was that you could "secure" a spare tire and jack with that little stock bent piece of wire, but my ballast was deemed "improper."

Now, as I said on the other board, I have NO personal beef with you or John Smith. John was truly prefossional. My beef is that I followed the guidelines within the FFW rulebook and was DQ'd. Certainly, the FFW rulebook should be written in compliance with the NHRA and IHRA rules.

Of course, the obvious solution to solving all the S/R cars ballast problems is to lower the minimum weight to a reasonable level, say 3200# or so.

I just wanted to set the record straight. Thanks for the opportunity,

Matt Eggleton, S/R 14

Saleen7 · 08-17-1999, 02:46 PM

Matt not to say anything to upset you , but I disagree alittle bit ..... let me explain .
first off you and others have chose to run S/R and at that time the weight was 3400 lbs.
So basically you agreed to run that. The weight will probally never change. You of anyone have never heard me complain about weight, basically because I chose a class and made a car around that class. Second of all like I have stated before , the FFW tech is for the compliance of the Class you run , and the NHRA or track tech is for the sanctioning bodies. I do not think the Track will risk loosing its sanctioning body support to please anyone even FFW. There rules are for safety and not the class.
and as to the ballast rules ....they are there for one reason and that is your safety and spectator safety ...they will not change ....to you a battery , Nitrous bottle and stereo equip is ballast ....but to the NHRA it is not ..... also you got to look at the pounds per square inch of the ballast and weight you have ....I know this because aas you know I balance Airplane loads all day long.
You just cannot put a large amount of weight in a small area .
lets just put it this way ...if I get a box the size of a battery box that weighs 140 lbs ...it will stay where it is because it is too heavy. and the bin of an aircraft is alot stronger than the trunk of your stang.
I too will have the weight problem and it will be solved with a crossmember and several attaching points. Just remember that there are several other options in that car to mount ballast that is removed easy.
I am not posting this to tick you off on this situation , I know how you get when you are mad .

Don S/R 887

Matt86GT · 08-17-1999, 03:49 PM

Don,
This is not a debate over the rules. I've been a member of FFW since 1995. I understand the classes and I understand the inevitable fluctuation of the rules. I have no problem with NHRA's rules and certainly understand that at each event I must comply with the host track's sanctioning body's rules. These are all "givens."

I simply rebutted what George had to say, since some of his facts about my car were incorrect. As anyone would, I wanted to state my side of the story.

Also, I find the interpretation that George uses in the original post (since no crossmembers, we let them run it bolted to the floor) a bit ambiguous, though I understand that common sense must prevail when determining the safety of a car.

By the way, your comment about my temperment on an international forum is completley unfounded. I accepted my consequences and took my whipping in S/O like a man. Any racer that discussed this issue with me in Bristol (Murillo, Haveman, Kurgan, etc.etc.) would agree, I'm sure. John Smith, the tech inspector at the race certainly would vouch as well.

Hope to see you and your car's new configuration at an event someday,

Matt Eggleton, S/R 14

Saleen7 · 08-17-1999, 05:02 PM

Matt,
Maybe I should expand upon that .....it is not your temperment I was questioning. You are a very professional person....I ment to say you are very headstrong ...and there is nothing wrong with that.
I will see ya at The Rock
Don S/R 887

Adam Dugger · 08-17-1999, 07:04 PM

With all due respect..

You say that the weight restrictions wont change.. I am not too sure about that. In its 'infancy stage' Street Renegade has gone through many changes. The addition of power adders that were no previously deemed 'legal' by FFW is one example. One might argue that the combination an SR racer might have built in the beginning of the Race Season, might not be competitive enough now with the additional products that are' available' for use.

For the record, my car has no problem meeting the 3400# minimum. BUt I do feel that Mr Eggleton was treated unfair. He obeyed the FFR rulebook, had been teched in at previous events, yet he was not allowed to run at said event due to discrepencies between the FFW and NHRA rulebook. So what does this mean? Which one do we follow? Surely if one contradicts the other, we have a problem. That is the matter at hand that should be addressed.

Adam Dugger
SR#43 'Waiting for next season'

Saleen7 · 08-17-1999, 08:07 PM

Adam like I said earlier it won't change ....the target times where in the 10's for this class and they are way beyond that, and as long as there are 2 or more cars running 9's and 20+ cars at an event it won't change ,if anything get more strict. then if it does why don't we call it Renegade Outlaw !!!! The weight is uniform man. yes several things have changed in an attempt to make the Nitrous cars more competitve and as you see things are starting to equal out ..... I don't see a sleeve for the D1 or anything else. This class was not intended to turn into another Street/Outlaw merge then we are all screwed again.

AS to Matt ...I understand the point but what you do not understand what I am saying is ......No matter what FFW tech says ....it is upto The sanctioning bodies rules when it comes to things like that ....If the track will not let the car run down the track and there is nothing FFW can do about it .
The NHRA/IHRA rule book is what it will go by not the FFW book. an to the fact that it tech'd ok in the past doesn't matter ...different day different track. HE could go back to the track that past him and they may do a 180 and say you can't do that .
Bristol being a "NEW" track I would expect them to be alot stricter ...and as I have seen Atlanta & Gainesville are the same way.
And also we all saw an Outlaw car pass tech in Atlanta with a powerglide and then get DQ'd later , proving that you can be tech'd at anytime.

Adam Dugger · 08-17-1999, 08:40 PM

Don.

Neither myself or anyone else is contesting the decision of track officials, or the decision of FFW tech inspectors to carry out the decisions made by both the sanctioning bodiues and the track officials. I believe (and correct me if I am wrong here) that the flaw is the Fun Ford Weekend Rulebook, which allows said ballast, does it not?
ANd the mere fact that the 'letter of the law' as it pertains to ballast in the NHRA rulebook not being applicable to unibody cars like thge Mustang (which FFW Racing is basically based on) is ridiculous.
I am not debating the safety issue, as loose ballast is indeed a safety hazard to the driver and spectator's alike. But perhaps more consideration should have been made in this regards.. the two should compliment each other.. not contradict each other. The last thing I want to see is someone getting injured or killed because or defiance or non-enforcement of ANY safety rules.
You said "The NHRA/IHRA rule book is what it will go by not the FFW book." So what is the purpose of the FFW rulebook? Is it a supplement? When the two oppose.. thats a problem.

As for the class staying the way it is.. I dont know.... I still think there are many changes in store for 2000 SR. Yes, there are those running 9s.. they are knowledgeable tuners and excellent racers. I am not taking any of that away from anybody. But the class will grow.. if it doesnt grow it will die.. and nobody wants that.

I look forward to seeing some excellent racing in the future.

Adam

Saleen7 · 08-17-1999, 10:02 PM

again Adam as I have said the FFW book will define the Class Rules , and the NHRA the Track and Safety Rules ...if there is a conflict in the books the Stricter of the 2 will be enforced , but at an IHRA track the FFW book may be the Stricter.
And also I have been told that there are no rule changes planned anytime in the future. the target time has been exceded by all power adders , the D1, Novi , and T-Trim are all in the nines and the Nitrous is right there and probally will be faster from what I understand.
AS to what you said to the changes with blowers , that is a give me because the companies are all coming out with better blowers..... new intakes and etc will be added but the cam lift and the weight along with others including the heads will go unchanged ...... changing the rules every race is what runs people off. Hardly ever changing them keeps them around ...no one wants to build a combo only to find out the next race it is illegal ..... I and many would rather it stay the same and allow us to improve our combos with tuning

George Klass · 08-17-1999, 10:02 PM

Actually, I think that all of you guys are correct. I wasn't aware of the problem with Matt's S/R car until 2 days ago. He never mentioned it to me at Bristol and I left there for a 1 week vacation. Matt, sorry if I misinterpreted your weight. That's what John Smith guessed at the time. And you are correct about the apperent conflict between the NHRA and FFW Rule Books regarding ballast. The NHRA book assumes that everyone has a "frame" and "crossmsmbers". Obviously, the Mustangs don't fall into that exact catagory. We have tried to be more flexable with our "interpretation" of the way ballast is secured in the Mustangs. Usually, removable ballast consists of 50 to 100 lbs. When it becomes more than that, and it is all concentrated in a relativly small area, it can set up red flags.
I honestly don't recall checking your car in the past. I am not doubting you, however.
There was one other thing that could have mitigated the problem, also. John Smith is based out of Atlanta (NHRA Division 2). As it happens, the NHRA Division 2 Tech Director was looking over John's shoulder during your tech. Maybe John would not have had a problem with your ballast situation at another time and another place.
Who knows?
We intend to rewrite the FFW "ballast" rules for next year in an attempt to make them clearer. In the mean time, the NHRA rules regarding ballast will take precedent over the FFW description.

Saleen7 · 08-17-1999, 10:11 PM

George if you can give us your thoughts on placement of say at least 200 lbs of ballast in a mustang , where , and how you feel it should be placed to avoid this in the future. I know that when it comes to the mustang alot of people want to put it in the hatch ...what are your feelings and recommendations on this.
Don

George Klass · 08-18-1999, 08:22 AM

I can understand adding 200 lbs. of ballast in order to "make a class weight" such as S/R, however adding it in the hatch area will likely lead to an ill handling car. Interesting enough, the driver's butt is usually the center of the Mustang's mass. By that I mean that a 200 lbs. driver usuall adds 100 lbs. to the front tires and 100 lbs. to the rear tires. So, any ballast behind the driver will add weight to the rear tires, primarily. If it were me, I would add the 200 lbs. ballast just in front of the centerline of the rear axles, in the area near where your seat back was. Also, because of the large mass of weight, I would weld a crossmsmber between the rear subframes to anchor the weight. This crossmsmber could also be attached to the frame or roll cage area and be above the floor. Ballast can not be installed above the upper height of your rear tires. Ballast can also be installed effectively by bolting small amounts to various tubes of your roll cage in the same area. To do this, you have to drill a hole in the tubing and then weld in a sleeve, so that when you tighten up the bolt & nut, you don't crush the tubing. Another idea for adding weight is to increase the tubing in your roll bar/cage area. This may have the extra benefit of making your chassis stiffer.
Make the weight "work" for you.
Regards.

08-17-1999, 12:47 AM	#1
George Klass Registered Member Join Date: Dec 1998 Location: Torrance, California, USA Posts: 104	Ballast I noticed on another messageboard that a Street Renegade racer was DQ'd at Bristol for a ballast installation infraction. The reason that this happened was that this racer had too much ballast in one location. FFW's ballast installation rules permit weight to be bolted to the floor with at least two 1/2" Grade 8 bolts per 100 lbs. This racer did have the required number of bolts, however, he had between 200 and 300 lbs. of ballast, all bolted through the floor in the spare tire well area. This is just too much weight in a fairly small area. The floor is just not strong enough. NHRA ballast installation rules demand a frame or "crossmember" to be used rather than the floor. Since Mustang chassis don't really have any crossmembers, we have permitted the weight to be attached to the floor, providing large flat washers top and bottom and the above mentioned bolts. Once you get much above 100 lbs., better weld some kind of crossmember between the rear sub frames. I hope that this clears up the problem.

08-17-1999, 12:14 PM	#2
Matt86GT Registered Member Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Lenoir, NC Posts: 6	George, First off, that racer is me. I posted on the NMRA BBS because I find this one quite cumbersome and at the least very user "unfriendly." You'll note, most other racers use that one, as well. Your facts are not quite in order. Yes, after being DQ'd from S/R, I ran in S/O at more than 300# lighter. However, that was not nearly all ballast. I syphoned 10 gallons of gasoline out, removed my rear seats, and drove 90 miles home to get my plastic race buckets. Yes, I went from the "tractor pull weight" of 3440 to 3110 in just over an hour (not including trip home). The balast that I was DQ'ed for consisted of 130# (not 200-300). As clearly described on the NMRA board, this amount was secured within the guidleines of page 27 & 28 of the FFW Rulebook. You, yourself, teched me in Atlanta, and mentioned that you thought I had come up with a great method of securing my ballast. Also, I would like to point out that it was determined in that tech line that you could bolt your 60# battery box to the floor, but not a 25# weight. You could bolt your 24# nitrous bottle to the floor, but not a 25# weight. You could also screw bulky stereo equipment to the floor. Also determined was that you could "secure" a spare tire and jack with that little stock bent piece of wire, but my ballast was deemed "improper." Now, as I said on the other board, I have NO personal beef with you or John Smith. John was truly prefossional. My beef is that I followed the guidelines within the FFW rulebook and was DQ'd. Certainly, the FFW rulebook should be written in compliance with the NHRA and IHRA rules. Of course, the obvious solution to solving all the S/R cars ballast problems is to lower the minimum weight to a reasonable level, say 3200# or so. I just wanted to set the record straight. Thanks for the opportunity, Matt Eggleton, S/R 14

08-17-1999, 02:46 PM	#3
Saleen7 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Mooresville , NC Posts: 31	Matt not to say anything to upset you , but I disagree alittle bit ..... let me explain . first off you and others have chose to run S/R and at that time the weight was 3400 lbs. So basically you agreed to run that. The weight will probally never change. You of anyone have never heard me complain about weight, basically because I chose a class and made a car around that class. Second of all like I have stated before , the FFW tech is for the compliance of the Class you run , and the NHRA or track tech is for the sanctioning bodies. I do not think the Track will risk loosing its sanctioning body support to please anyone even FFW. There rules are for safety and not the class. and as to the ballast rules ....they are there for one reason and that is your safety and spectator safety ...they will not change ....to you a battery , Nitrous bottle and stereo equip is ballast ....but to the NHRA it is not ..... also you got to look at the pounds per square inch of the ballast and weight you have ....I know this because aas you know I balance Airplane loads all day long. You just cannot put a large amount of weight in a small area . lets just put it this way ...if I get a box the size of a battery box that weighs 140 lbs ...it will stay where it is because it is too heavy. and the bin of an aircraft is alot stronger than the trunk of your stang. I too will have the weight problem and it will be solved with a crossmember and several attaching points. Just remember that there are several other options in that car to mount ballast that is removed easy. I am not posting this to tick you off on this situation , I know how you get when you are mad . Don S/R 887

08-17-1999, 03:49 PM	#4
Matt86GT Registered Member Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Lenoir, NC Posts: 6	Don, This is not a debate over the rules. I've been a member of FFW since 1995. I understand the classes and I understand the inevitable fluctuation of the rules. I have no problem with NHRA's rules and certainly understand that at each event I must comply with the host track's sanctioning body's rules. These are all "givens." I simply rebutted what George had to say, since some of his facts about my car were incorrect. As anyone would, I wanted to state my side of the story. Also, I find the interpretation that George uses in the original post (since no crossmembers, we let them run it bolted to the floor) a bit ambiguous, though I understand that common sense must prevail when determining the safety of a car. By the way, your comment about my temperment on an international forum is completley unfounded. I accepted my consequences and took my whipping in S/O like a man. Any racer that discussed this issue with me in Bristol (Murillo, Haveman, Kurgan, etc.etc.) would agree, I'm sure. John Smith, the tech inspector at the race certainly would vouch as well. Hope to see you and your car's new configuration at an event someday, Matt Eggleton, S/R 14

08-17-1999, 05:02 PM	#5
Saleen7 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Mooresville , NC Posts: 31	Matt, Maybe I should expand upon that .....it is not your temperment I was questioning. You are a very professional person....I ment to say you are very headstrong ...and there is nothing wrong with that. I will see ya at The Rock Don S/R 887

08-17-1999, 07:04 PM	#6
Adam Dugger Registered Member Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Long Island, NY, USA Posts: 5	With all due respect.. You say that the weight restrictions wont change.. I am not too sure about that. In its 'infancy stage' Street Renegade has gone through many changes. The addition of power adders that were no previously deemed 'legal' by FFW is one example. One might argue that the combination an SR racer might have built in the beginning of the Race Season, might not be competitive enough now with the additional products that are' available' for use. For the record, my car has no problem meeting the 3400# minimum. BUt I do feel that Mr Eggleton was treated unfair. He obeyed the FFR rulebook, had been teched in at previous events, yet he was not allowed to run at said event due to discrepencies between the FFW and NHRA rulebook. So what does this mean? Which one do we follow? Surely if one contradicts the other, we have a problem. That is the matter at hand that should be addressed. Adam Dugger SR#43 'Waiting for next season'

08-17-1999, 08:07 PM	#7
Saleen7 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Mooresville , NC Posts: 31	Adam like I said earlier it won't change ....the target times where in the 10's for this class and they are way beyond that, and as long as there are 2 or more cars running 9's and 20+ cars at an event it won't change ,if anything get more strict. then if it does why don't we call it Renegade Outlaw !!!! The weight is uniform man. yes several things have changed in an attempt to make the Nitrous cars more competitve and as you see things are starting to equal out ..... I don't see a sleeve for the D1 or anything else. This class was not intended to turn into another Street/Outlaw merge then we are all screwed again. AS to Matt ...I understand the point but what you do not understand what I am saying is ......No matter what FFW tech says ....it is upto The sanctioning bodies rules when it comes to things like that ....If the track will not let the car run down the track and there is nothing FFW can do about it . The NHRA/IHRA rule book is what it will go by not the FFW book. an to the fact that it tech'd ok in the past doesn't matter ...different day different track. HE could go back to the track that past him and they may do a 180 and say you can't do that . Bristol being a "NEW" track I would expect them to be alot stricter ...and as I have seen Atlanta & Gainesville are the same way. And also we all saw an Outlaw car pass tech in Atlanta with a powerglide and then get DQ'd later , proving that you can be tech'd at anytime.

08-17-1999, 08:40 PM	#8
Adam Dugger Registered Member Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Long Island, NY, USA Posts: 5	Don. Neither myself or anyone else is contesting the decision of track officials, or the decision of FFW tech inspectors to carry out the decisions made by both the sanctioning bodiues and the track officials. I believe (and correct me if I am wrong here) that the flaw is the Fun Ford Weekend Rulebook, which allows said ballast, does it not? ANd the mere fact that the 'letter of the law' as it pertains to ballast in the NHRA rulebook not being applicable to unibody cars like thge Mustang (which FFW Racing is basically based on) is ridiculous. I am not debating the safety issue, as loose ballast is indeed a safety hazard to the driver and spectator's alike. But perhaps more consideration should have been made in this regards.. the two should compliment each other.. not contradict each other. The last thing I want to see is someone getting injured or killed because or defiance or non-enforcement of ANY safety rules. You said "The NHRA/IHRA rule book is what it will go by not the FFW book." So what is the purpose of the FFW rulebook? Is it a supplement? When the two oppose.. thats a problem. As for the class staying the way it is.. I dont know.... I still think there are many changes in store for 2000 SR. Yes, there are those running 9s.. they are knowledgeable tuners and excellent racers. I am not taking any of that away from anybody. But the class will grow.. if it doesnt grow it will die.. and nobody wants that. I look forward to seeing some excellent racing in the future. Adam

08-17-1999, 10:02 PM	#9
Saleen7 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Mooresville , NC Posts: 31	again Adam as I have said the FFW book will define the Class Rules , and the NHRA the Track and Safety Rules ...if there is a conflict in the books the Stricter of the 2 will be enforced , but at an IHRA track the FFW book may be the Stricter. And also I have been told that there are no rule changes planned anytime in the future. the target time has been exceded by all power adders , the D1, Novi , and T-Trim are all in the nines and the Nitrous is right there and probally will be faster from what I understand. AS to what you said to the changes with blowers , that is a give me because the companies are all coming out with better blowers..... new intakes and etc will be added but the cam lift and the weight along with others including the heads will go unchanged ...... changing the rules every race is what runs people off. Hardly ever changing them keeps them around ...no one wants to build a combo only to find out the next race it is illegal ..... I and many would rather it stay the same and allow us to improve our combos with tuning

08-17-1999, 10:11 PM	#11
Saleen7 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Mooresville , NC Posts: 31	George if you can give us your thoughts on placement of say at least 200 lbs of ballast in a mustang , where , and how you feel it should be placed to avoid this in the future. I know that when it comes to the mustang alot of people want to put it in the hatch ...what are your feelings and recommendations on this. Don

08-18-1999, 08:22 AM	#12
George Klass Registered Member Join Date: Dec 1998 Location: Torrance, California, USA Posts: 104	I can understand adding 200 lbs. of ballast in order to "make a class weight" such as S/R, however adding it in the hatch area will likely lead to an ill handling car. Interesting enough, the driver's butt is usually the center of the Mustang's mass. By that I mean that a 200 lbs. driver usuall adds 100 lbs. to the front tires and 100 lbs. to the rear tires. So, any ballast behind the driver will add weight to the rear tires, primarily. If it were me, I would add the 200 lbs. ballast just in front of the centerline of the rear axles, in the area near where your seat back was. Also, because of the large mass of weight, I would weld a crossmsmber between the rear subframes to anchor the weight. This crossmsmber could also be attached to the frame or roll cage area and be above the floor. Ballast can not be installed above the upper height of your rear tires. Ballast can also be installed effectively by bolting small amounts to various tubes of your roll cage in the same area. To do this, you have to drill a hole in the tubing and then weld in a sleeve, so that when you tighten up the bolt & nut, you don't crush the tubing. Another idea for adding weight is to increase the tubing in your roll bar/cage area. This may have the extra benefit of making your chassis stiffer. Make the weight "work" for you. Regards.