Is weight no longer an issue in sports cars?

[ermax]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

So that guy didn't that means nobody does? Nobody tracks Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs, BMWs, or any other car that costs more for consumables? Nobody?
I get that it would cost too much for some but that DOES NOT mean the cars are not trackable.
The whole idea of saying nobody will or should based upon personal ideals is totally ridiculous.

I never said nobody. I didn't use absolutes, you did. You said if you can afford the car you can afford the consumables. The thread is about curb weight and sports cars. IMO sports cars should stay light rather than compensating with massive rubber because even with big rubber they still feel big and heavy.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Just figured out an estimate for my Camaro.

Track: $650 for two days
Hotel: $300
Tires: F: $240, R: $120
Rotors: $66 (fronts only, rears have no visible wear so I have no idea how long they'll last)
Pads: $150 (probably high but whatever)

So that's $1,526 so far..

Gas: $384 (based on 8 fillups over the weekend)

So approx $1,910. And that's for a car fast enough to pass Cayman GT4s and andy 911 south of the GT2/GT3/Turbo.

Of that 950 is event fees and hotel, so less than $1k in total comsumables including fuel.

My old BRZ was cheaper, but with much less grippy tires. Add Cup2s or similar to the BRZ and I doubt my costs change that much. Fuel and pads will be the biggest differences probably.

And there we have it. Not the $450 an hour or even the $3000 an event numbers being randomly thrown around.
Not everybody that tracks is broke ass poor where they can not afford consumables.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by ermax

I never said nobody. I didn't use absolutes, you did. You said if you can afford the car you can afford the consumables. The thread is about curb weight and sports cars. IMO sports cars should stay light rather than compensating with massive rubber because even with big rubber they still feel big and heavy.

I agree when the big rubber is being used to hide a poor chassis.

Big rubber on a GOOD chassis, even with weight, doesn't feel big and heavy. I've driven cars like you are describing (Boss 302 LS, various charger/challenger, 5th gen Camaros, old Vipers, etc) but not all heavier cars are like that.

Big cars need lovin' too

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ermax

I never said nobody. I didn't use absolutes, you did. You said if you can afford the car you can afford the consumables. The thread is about curb weight and sports cars. IMO sports cars should stay light rather than compensating with massive rubber because even with big rubber they still feel big and heavy.

OK "Probably" afford.
The statement was made that nobody wants to spend that money on consumables. That is wrong.


Not everybody is worried about weight. That is well proven by sales numbers. Personal preferences vary but that does not make the others wrong.

[WolfpackS2k]

Dave what tires you run on the Camaro? Those prices sound ridiculously cheap. The Michelin Pilot Super Sports I run on street and track are around $1000 (IIRC) for all 4, but they last 25,000 miles + 4-6 track days. I'd love to go stickier, but then I'd have to upgrade my oil sump to prevent starvation.

My Pagid yellows were $650 for a set, which is less than $100 more than what my track pads cost for the BRZ, and look like they're good for 10-15 track days. Front rotors last about 40k miles, rears...I think they're still original (but are due for replacement).

Only going through 1 tank of fuel a day is pretty nice.

I am considerably slower than any equivalent drivers in SS's...by a long shot haha. But that's fine - the biggest gains I could achieve right now in lowering my times are in my shifting. My downshifting is horrendous; I can't heel-toe well at all.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Keep in mind that the Mazda motor STILL makes significantly less specific power. 90.5 HP/l vs 102.5 HP/l for the twins. Especially for a boxer that's damn impressive. Before 2010 even Porsche didn't have an NA boxer for sale over 100hp/l except for the GT3. If the twins had as much displacement/ton as the Miata they'd have 237hp. Our engine doesn't make that much power, but it sure tries hard!

For sure when you look at the HP/L the FA20 is impressive. It would love to see them bump it to 2.4L. The FA24 has the same stroke but bigger bore. This would give more valve area so theoretically with the right heads and valvetrain you could sling it faster than the FA20 and make more power while keeping the mass very close if not identical to the FA20. I'd much rather see this vs add the turbo that everyone always screams.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And there we have it. Not the $450 an hour or even the $3000 an event numbers being randomly thrown around.
Not everybody that tracks is broke ass poor where they can not afford consumables.

$3000 was assuming a set of 4 305 width 20 inch tires are roasted.

I'm at around $1000 per weekend without including any consumables cost.

[Summerwolf]

I had a C5Z and my consumables were cheap. Realistically the only bigger expense overall is the tires so far. The car in and of itself was cheaper to upgrade as well for what I'd want to do and what I did do.


Put on a set of decent 245/40/17s and wheels for the twin and the gap shortens quite a bit over factory sizes.


I'm not tracking or even driving the BRZ as much as I did my corvette though.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Dave what tires you run on the Camaro? Those prices sound ridiculously cheap. The Michelin Pilot Super Sports I run on street and track are around $1000 (IIRC) for all 4, but they last 25,000 miles + 4-6 track days. I'd love to go stickier, but then I'd have to upgrade my oil sump to prevent starvation.

My Pagid yellows were $650 for a set, which is less than $100 more than what my track pads cost for the BRZ, and look like they're good for 10-15 track days. Front rotors last about 40k miles, rears...I think they're still original (but are due for replacement).

Only going through 1 tank of fuel a day is pretty nice.

I am considerably slower than any equivalent drivers in SS's...by a long shot haha. But that's fine - the biggest gains I could achieve right now in lowering my times are in my shifting. My downshifting is horrendous; I can't heel-toe well at all.

I run the stock Goodyear Supercar3: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...formance%20Pkg

The Cup2 is slightly faster but at a big $ increase. The Supercar 3R are even faster at not too bad a price (~1500 IIRC) but the front wear out fast on the Camaro without 3.5 or more camber (mine is maxed at -2.6 with all stock components). If I ever get more camber I'll run the 3Rs.

1 tank a day?!?! HOW? haha I burn .5-.67 tanks in a session. Obviously different cars.. but I've never owned anything that did a day with 1 tank of fuel ha

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

I had a C5Z and my consumables were cheap. Realistically the only bigger expense overall is the tires so far. The car in and of itself was cheaper to upgrade as well for what I'd want to do and what I did do.


Put on a set of decent 245/40/17s and wheels for the twin and the gap shortens quite a bit over factory sizes.


I'm not tracking or even driving the BRZ as much as I did my corvette though.

The C5Z is literally the cheapest fast track car out there I've looked at them a few times.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

OK "Probably" afford.
The statement was made that nobody wants to spend that money on consumables. That is wrong.


Not everybody is worried about weight. That is well proven by sales numbers. Personal preferences vary but that does not make the others wrong.

Just because sales numbers are fine doesn't mean no one wants a lighter car. If you could get a 992 and there was a free option for -200lbs, which would get the most sales? I can assure you no one shops for the heaviest sports car they can find. No one stops buying a 911 because it clicks over a particular curb weight. Hell it's hard to even find curb weights on cars half the time which has always been mind boggling to me.

This whole sales numbers argument bugs me. If you have no choice then how can sales numbers prove anything? Kind of like the new Supra. They claim that if there is enough demand they will offer a manual. Okay so how do they gauge demand? When someone goes to buy the car and asks for a manual and they say, sorry no manual and the guy buys the auto, what does that do to the data? Do they log in a system that someone asked for a manual? I seriously doubt it. In the end it's more profitable to only offer one option. Sorry.. I'm going off topic.

[WolfpackS2k]

I guess it comes down to being "a class below" really, as far as speed is concerned. I've never owned a stock sports car that needed a refill during a track day. By track day I'm talking about your standard HPDE with (4) 20-30 minute sessions.

GS-R and S2000 both have 13.2 gallon tanks and after a track day they'd usually be just above E. IIRC the fuel light would usually come on as I made my way to the fuel station at end of day.

BRZ also had a 13.2 gallon tank (50 liters) and that might have needed more fuel to get through the day, but it was supercharged so that changes things a bit.

Cayman has a 16.9 gallon tank and at VIR is usually down to 1/3-1/4 tank at end of day. Gets about 9 mpg on track in my hands.

I run in blue group, usually solo, and am rarely slower than anyone with a less capable car. I'd be in white by now but I don't track often enough. (PCA color tier, that is)

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ermax

Just because sales numbers are fine doesn't mean no one wants a lighter car. If you could get a 992 and there was a free option for -200lbs, which would get the most sales? I can assure you no one shops for the heaviest sports car they can find. No one stops buying a 911 because it clicks over a particular curb weight. Hell it's hard to even find curb weights on cars half the time which has always been mind boggling to me.

This whole sales numbers argument bugs me. If you have no choice then how can sales numbers prove anything? Kind of like the new Supra. They claim that if there is enough demand they will offer a manual. Okay so how do they gauge demand? When someone goes to buy the car and asks for a manual and they say, sorry no manual and the guy buys the auto, what does that do to the data? Do they log in a system that someone asked for a manual? I seriously doubt it. In the end it's more profitable to only offer one option. Sorry.. I'm going off topic.

DUDE! I am not saying anything about people wanting lighter cars. I was simply countering statements that heavier cars are horrible. They are not. There are benefits and drawbacks to both.
The sales numbers statement was just to show that many people buy these heavier cars. They do. And they love them. And they track them. And they don't care about weight.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And there we have it. Not the $450 an hour or even the $3000 an event numbers being randomly thrown around.
Not everybody that tracks is broke ass poor where they can not afford consumables.

I am not randomly throwing around numbers (although the number was $400/hr not $450/hr). There is a great thread on the topic here:
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130428

There are some detailed breakdowns on consumables for several cars in that thread. Not simple off the top of people's heads breakdowns but very well thought through details after lots of events. The bottom line is the C7 GrandSport doesn't have expensive consumables because it is lightweight. It's simple physics.

I'm a firm believer in the slippery slope. If we keep ignoring the mass of sports cars they will keep climbing. We will all be driving Teslas because, oooh they are so fast. Well they are slow as balls on a road course.