Weigh your F-Type! Easy and no hassle . . .
#21
#22
#23
It will be interesting to see if your "s" options are as heavy as your lighter manual tranny and coupe bodystyle.....personally I wouldn't be surprised if yours was lighter.
As long as we are comparing apples to apples, it doesn't matter but for my purposes, I'll be using wet weight, no fuel, no cargo/passengers.....it's too hard to compare different vehicles with varying fuel capacities; to use a motorcycle analogy, it isn't fair to penalize one bike for being able to carry 6 galls of fuel when another can only carry 2.5 galls...
Another thought...just rambling; though 100 lbs isn't insignificant, when you add the weight of a couple options (they weigh something ) and then a bit of scale variation...well, my physics professor called it "propagation of errors". so a +/- is reasonable....how much? I don't know but 100 lbs is is only 2%.
Dave.
As long as we are comparing apples to apples, it doesn't matter but for my purposes, I'll be using wet weight, no fuel, no cargo/passengers.....it's too hard to compare different vehicles with varying fuel capacities; to use a motorcycle analogy, it isn't fair to penalize one bike for being able to carry 6 galls of fuel when another can only carry 2.5 galls...
Another thought...just rambling; though 100 lbs isn't insignificant, when you add the weight of a couple options (they weigh something ) and then a bit of scale variation...well, my physics professor called it "propagation of errors". so a +/- is reasonable....how much? I don't know but 100 lbs is is only 2%.
Dave.
#24
Cheers,
Dave
#25
#26
Foosh, maybe you should take that boat anchor out of your trunk. (Something ain't right)
#29
#30
#32
one of the posts he said "without fuel". Since no mention of his weight, I finally concluded it did not include his weight. Could be wrong.
#34
Wow...this is getting like the "fuel in the hose " debate.
My '16 R Coupe was on the scale, I was inside the booth with the guard/weigh guy. The didigital read out was 4040, then settled at 4020.
It is a scale at a trucking yard and the scale calibrating guy told me on the phone it had recently been calibrated with a 10kilo +/- accuracy.
The scale is used primarily for multi axle trucks....not delicate Jaguars.
For those doubting my integrity...solve this contentious issue but bellying up to the bar, plunking down your $20 and posting your notarized weigh slips.....oh, I forgot to mention, nitrogen in the tires....well three of them, I had to ad some "air" to the rt front...it was down 4# of pressure. Hope that doesn't skew the results.
My '16 R Coupe was on the scale, I was inside the booth with the guard/weigh guy. The didigital read out was 4040, then settled at 4020.
It is a scale at a trucking yard and the scale calibrating guy told me on the phone it had recently been calibrated with a 10kilo +/- accuracy.
The scale is used primarily for multi axle trucks....not delicate Jaguars.
For those doubting my integrity...solve this contentious issue but bellying up to the bar, plunking down your $20 and posting your notarized weigh slips.....oh, I forgot to mention, nitrogen in the tires....well three of them, I had to ad some "air" to the rt front...it was down 4# of pressure. Hope that doesn't skew the results.
#35
It's nothing like the "fuel in the hose" debate.
Not doubting your integrity, but you didn't provide enough info for an apples-to-apples comparison, and the best way to do that and erase all doubt is to post a picture of the weight slip. One very important fact that you omitted and now just mentioned is that you were not in the car. Posting a picture of the slip also demonstrates that the posted weight is on a calibrated scale.
You don't seem like the type, but there are also people on internet forums who just make stuff up.
It doesn't matter that it's a truck scale, they are segmented for the length so they can get a weight for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd axles. That's important for heavy vehicle tire inflation pressures and highway weight limits. They are also very accurate. When you put a car on one, you're in the 1st segment which would be the first axle on a large truck, but it gives you a very accurate weight for the entire car.
Most truck stops in the US require that you be in the vehicle for the drive on and off CAT scales, and I posted a picture of my base car weight slip above. So the 3920 lbs included my 190 lb. body.
So how much do you weigh? We can then add that to your posted number for an apples-to-apples comparison. ;-)
Not doubting your integrity, but you didn't provide enough info for an apples-to-apples comparison, and the best way to do that and erase all doubt is to post a picture of the weight slip. One very important fact that you omitted and now just mentioned is that you were not in the car. Posting a picture of the slip also demonstrates that the posted weight is on a calibrated scale.
You don't seem like the type, but there are also people on internet forums who just make stuff up.
It doesn't matter that it's a truck scale, they are segmented for the length so they can get a weight for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd axles. That's important for heavy vehicle tire inflation pressures and highway weight limits. They are also very accurate. When you put a car on one, you're in the 1st segment which would be the first axle on a large truck, but it gives you a very accurate weight for the entire car.
Most truck stops in the US require that you be in the vehicle for the drive on and off CAT scales, and I posted a picture of my base car weight slip above. So the 3920 lbs included my 190 lb. body.
So how much do you weigh? We can then add that to your posted number for an apples-to-apples comparison. ;-)
Last edited by Foosh; 04-15-2016 at 06:05 PM.
#36
The scale had at least 3 segments...the weigh guy/ guard had me on the mid segment....one ahead and at least one behind the one the car was on.
As for what I weigh, it's about 210 in my skives just for your info....as I was in the booth with the guy, the car did not have me in it....so, it's the car with 58% fuel ( if the readout is accurate...I make no representation about that ).
Hopefully someone will come up with a suitable documented weight for a R Coupe so this epic can be put to bed.
As for what I weigh, it's about 210 in my skives just for your info....as I was in the booth with the guy, the car did not have me in it....so, it's the car with 58% fuel ( if the readout is accurate...I make no representation about that ).
Hopefully someone will come up with a suitable documented weight for a R Coupe so this epic can be put to bed.
The following users liked this post:
Foosh (04-15-2016)
#37
The scale had at least 3 segments...the weigh guy/ guard had me on the mid segment....one ahead and at least one behind the one the car was on.
As for what I weigh, it's about 210 in my skives just for your info....as I was in the booth with the guy, the car did not have me in it....so, it's the car with 58% fuel ( if the readout is accurate...I make no representation about that ).
Hopefully someone will come up with a suitable documented weight for a R Coupe so this epic can be put to bed.
As for what I weigh, it's about 210 in my skives just for your info....as I was in the booth with the guy, the car did not have me in it....so, it's the car with 58% fuel ( if the readout is accurate...I make no representation about that ).
Hopefully someone will come up with a suitable documented weight for a R Coupe so this epic can be put to bed.
Put another way, your 4020, equates to 3730 on my car.
Car weight is a very serious issue for enthusiasts, and every bit as important as HP and torque, sometimes more so. Thus, it's not a "how much cheap fuel is left in the hose issue."
It's also a reason that virtually every big-league race car driver in any series looks kinda like a thoroughbred horse jockey. :-)
Last edited by Foosh; 04-15-2016 at 06:40 PM.
#39
Thus, the assumption was AWD was in his car when he said it weighed 4020, but he was not, and didn't mention that or his weight until later. That didn't seem credible when my no option base car came in at 3920 (with me in it), but now we know.
Obviously, we're only interested in apples-to-apples comparisons, which requires all variables to be known.
Last edited by Foosh; 04-15-2016 at 07:01 PM.
#40