944 weight reduction, any results

[m33mcg]

:035: I know this topic was already asked, but now that the season is coming to a close how did the weight reduction help the 944. Or is it still to soon to tell?

I am starting the tear down on the 944 and any help/suggestions would be helpfull.
Thanks

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think it's too soon to tell but judging by the uproar some of the SM guys are making over an additional 25lbs, I think you will be a happy camper. Only downside? Big money to prep the engine to the level you need to to take full advantage.

[ChrisCamadella]

I very highly doubt that any 944NA racers are able to come even close to the weight as it stands right now - I suspect that you could make the minimum weight 1,000 pounds and it wouldn't make any difference.

When I look at my lap times in my 944 8V, compared to the mylaps times for ITA - we would be a good solid mid-pack racer in ITA with the 8V 944 - I'm going to cite the times and write you guys a letter...

[Andy Bettencourt]

When I look at my lap times in my 944 8V, compared to the mylaps times for ITA - we would be a good solid mid-pack racer in ITA with the 8V 944 - I'm going to cite the times and write you guys a letter...

[/b]

Make sure you site them for the same year...and remember, you were ta 2715 on old technology with 3 years of missing development.

[Knestis]

Lap times are not evidence appropriate to support reclassification or consideration under PCAs. Any letter moving forward from the proposition that this IS the case should be returned with a note indiciating as such.

Make a case based on the mechanical attributes of the car and ONLY the attributes of the car.

PLEASE make an effort to understand how the Production and GT categories got into their current state. We can learn from history.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 944 8V is a tweener. 158 stock hp. Yes, we know an ultra-prepped motor with programmabe ECU can only make about 20% over stock.

So it's too light in ITS (at 2575) or around 2900 in ITA. Remember, the 2S13 140hp 240SX (same displacement, same config and 18 less stock hp) is 2630.

What to do?

[ChrisCamadella]

I agree that the 9448V is sort of a 'tweener'. It's too light at 2575 for ITS. I couldn't have, even if I went on a 25lb diet (which I could use) made the car, with no fuel, weigh less than 2665, which is 90lbs heavy. So, as I said, you could set the weight at ANYTHING, and it wouldn't make any difference. And this was a car that was completely stripped to the bare body shell of all extra undercoating, etc.

I therefore think that there is no way for this car (the 8V version) to be competitive in ITS in any sort of trim. Although I understand your argument about the 3 or so years of development - I'm not sure how valid that is in our case. We haven't any chassis gains (that I know of) in that time, and we actually lost some gains by having to switch to the less adjustable shocks.

Also, I'm not sure why it's completely invalid to cite the lap times. They are a good representation of how fast a well-prepared version can go at various race tracks, and I have good reliable data from a large variety of race tracks.

One of the things I don't understand is how the RX-7s just go faster and faster - I understand why ITS is faster - we now have the BMW's, the 944 got a 16v engine, and the Corrado V6 has lots of power as well. Is there that much development available in the RX-7's that they just keep going faster and faster to keep up, with no changes to the cars or the rules? But now, I'm off topic...

Cheers

[Andy Bettencourt]

Although I understand your argument about the 3 or so years of development - I'm not sure how valid that is in our case. We haven't any chassis gains (that I know of) in that time, and we actually lost some gains by having to switch to the less adjustable shocks.

One of the things I don't understand is how the RX-7s just go faster and faster - I understand why ITS is faster - we now have the BMW's, the 944 got a 16v engine, and the Corrado V6 has lots of power as well. Is there that much development available in the RX-7's that they just keep going faster and faster to keep up, with no changes to the cars or the rules? But now, I'm off topic...

Cheers [/b]



I think you prove my point there. No additional allowances yet cars are going faster. Shocks, new tire compounds, continuous searces for every last hp and countless hours on the dyno, 5 test days a year - not just to 'drive around' but to maximize a shock/spring/bar/alignment package for EACH track...continous development.

[m33mcg]

I decided on the 944 for several season; first was the weight break it recieved; second was the diversity of clubs it can be raced in and the cool factor. I do not want to play follow the leader or have to race a mazda to be competitive in a cookie cutter class.

The Porsche 944 is a 20 + year old car with old technology(8v). The hp gains are there but the ITCS rules restrict it. My question is why? If you want more numbers open it up or dropt the 944 to ITA and add weight as needed. I know there are alot of PCA members that would jump in a heart beat. NASA leaders said that they want the 944Cup to have 60 cars for their next nationals.

It's a slame that one of the oldest sports cars manufactures isn't currently competitive in the largest SPORTS CAR CLUB.

[JeffYoung]

Z cars are THIRTY year old technology, with far worse brakes, and less stock hp running near the front of the pack at the ARRC.

[Knestis]

...Also, I'm not sure why it's completely invalid to cite the lap times. They are a good representation of how fast a well-prepared version can go at various race tracks, and I have good reliable data from a large variety of race tracks. ...
[/b]
It's not about the 944 particularly but there's just no way to isolate the make/model/weight of the car, as a factor contributing to lap time. I could complain that the MkIII Golf needs a break based on my lap times but I'll bet my case would go out the window if a Cunningham or Pobst drove it at the ARRC.

Testing and tire budgets, engineering skill and other factors contribute more than the basics of the platform. How about legality? Unless all of the subjects in the study get a thorough teardown, there's no way to know that we're comparing top-notch but legal cars.

Sorry. It's never going to make sound methodological sense to compare lap times, even if people have strong feelings about them as "proof" that a car needs a break. Or more lead.

K

EDIT - re: "it's a shame," there's absolutely no reason that one of the Porsche options in ITR, if a full-boat example were built, can't be competitive there. Part of the problem is that the level of performance of the Porsche product line is out of line with the whole IT category structure. Until now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's a shame (edit sp - AB) that one of the oldest sports cars manufactures isn't currently competitive in the largest SPORTS CAR CLUB. [/b]

Well ITR has plenty of good Por-sha choices, ITS has the 944 (untested at it's new weight) the 944S which has won plenty of races...and the 924 which has won in ITB...

[924Guy]

Throw some weight on it and let it run in ITA, seems the logical choice to me. I'd rather drop down a class to be competitive with ballast than stay in a higher class, unable to shed weight, and lucky to just stay on the same lap as Moser... oh, wait, that is me!!! :P
:cavallo:

PS - hate to have to remind a fellow P-car guy of this, but I'm a whole more likely to listen when Chris C or others who've spent a long time working with their cars expressing concern about being competitive, vs. someone who's just starting a build... Spend 5 years building it to the hilt and debugging it, then we'll have something to talk about. BTDT.

[RussJones]

I think if the car could make minimum weight you would have a good fight on your hands. 2575lbs with 175-185 hp is quite nice, I just have no idea how anybody will get there. My old 8v looked like it was left out on the Cross Bronx Expressway for a night and I was still at 2720 with no fuel ( i do weigh 200lbs). Maybe a female driver at 98lbs, with a bare minumum roll cage, no accusump, smallest fire ex ......could do it. Looking forward to seeing somebody try. Russ

[JeffYoung]

Russ is that wheel or crank hp?

I'm at 160 whp and 2560, and other than aero issues above 100 mph do not feel down on power to the fast cars. I would think 175-180 at the crank at 2575 with that handling and those brakes should be pretty stout, especially on momentum tracks.

[RussJones]

That would be crank per Milledge Engineering. Jeff, Im saying the car would work with the numbers. If you have 160 rwh, I think you'll be quite happy.

[JeffYoung]

160 is what I get, but it is on a car with live rear axle and drum brakes. TR8.

From what I have seen of the 944 on track,I would think one with 175-180 crank hp would be quite quick. Especially on momentum/handling tracks.

[latebrake]

With a 20% drop from the fly wheel to the road thats a 200 hp engine to put down 160 hp. thats a little high form all the dyno talk i have heard from guys building LP production engines with milledge heads and valves work. 185hp build in ITS is more like what you will get most of the time and thats about 148 to the drive wheels. thats a good fresh engine with the choise of a few good heads. the 44 in IT trim has to make it work with something other than HP.
Look at all race goups with the best times and its almost always the best of everything. best set up, best data on bars shocks and ties,best alinement equipment at the track and scale right at hand there too. its the cubic dollar thats fast. drop a 40k 944 with all the best off the truck with everthing needed to make changes for the track/conditions and they will win most of the time. the 6k 944 is always somewhere in the rear and there just for the fun.

[Ron Earp]

With a 20% drop from the fly wheel to the road thats a 200 hp engine to put down 160 hp. thats a little high form all the dyno talk i have heard from guys building LP production engines with milledge heads and valves work.
[/b]

Jeff is talking about his TR8 at 160rwhp, not the 944.

Ron

[Team SSR]

We race a 944 which does make weight. It's closer to a 6K car than a 40K car. We chose the 944 because it is designed closer to a 'real' race car than most street cars. I have no intention of spending 5 years and 50K in IT. The way I see it, if we want to win we have to either be lucky, do the cubic dollar thing, cheat, or move on. We will probably be moving on in '08. In the mean time we're going to go as fast as our budget and a lot of hard work allows in '07.

[latebrake]

Jeff is talking about his TR8 at 160rwhp, not the 944.

Ron
[/b]
Sorry about that Jeff. i was just making talk about the 944 and not jumping anyone about the HP of other cars. :D no harm do i hope.

[JeffYoung]

No problem man, I wasn't clear.

Anthony, were are you going next with the 944S? Ron and I will be in ITR in 08 probably, probably in a Porsche or Nissan.

I'd still like to see a fully developed 944 at or near the 2575 weight and see what it could do.

[944-spec#94]

I agree that the 9448V is sort of a 'tweener'. It's too light at 2575 for ITS. I couldn't have, even if I went on a 25lb diet (which I could use) made the car, with no fuel, weigh less than 2665, which is 90lbs heavy. So, as I said, you could set the weight at ANYTHING, and it wouldn't make any difference. And this was a car that was completely stripped to the bare body shell of all extra undercoating, etc.[/b]

Chris,
I am not up on all the IT rules, but I run 944 NASA 944 spec. In this class we can strip out just about everything that does not make the car go, but we keep stock steel body & stock glass. My car with me in it runs 2633 with a passenger's seat and 40lbs of ballast. I still have all my under coatings and I weight 165 with full gear. I still have few things I can remove to get below 2600 with ease and can get close to 2575 if I look for a few more things. This on an 84 chassis, but I am not 100% certain out stripping rules are the same. Our 944 spec class has some 100+ 944 2.5L 8v cars being raced or built for the class and the 2600lbs seems fair. Although latter chassis seem to simply weight more than the 83-85 chassis.

So while 2575 is pretty light I'd bet a number of 944-spec prepared cars can make this weight.

As for hp our rules geared torward stock hp vs expecting a 20% gain. Most of our cars Dyno to 130's RWHP so no where near the 148 expect for ITS cars so would be dog slow even if we get close to min weight.

[latebrake]

While we are talking about the 944 i just thought i would mention that Jesse Wall and I just finished a 944S that we were going to run in Super Cup in NASA 944 cup (maybe) Jesse wants to buy and finish out a me-otter that his preacher has with 60k for 5k and he says he just may do it. the car has hard bushings in the rear and an auto power cage with new seats and the toyo tires have only one heat cycle on them the shocks front and rear are brand new (koni) as are the brake pads bla bla bla. I drove it at VIR on a member day and the thing is fast and gets around well. all it needs is the cut off swith and the fire bottle and its an ITS car. maybe the cage need another door bar,not sure about that. tower bar and camber plates all new. the car has rear coil overs right now but he has a set of 28mm t bars(=450#springs) for it in IT. he says he will sell if for $5500.00 bucks if its done soon. its not my car to post but if you are interested PM me or something. Jesse changes his mind with the wind and i have tried to talk him out of this :dead_horse: as i have 300 hr work in the thing too but like i said its not my car.

[lateapex911]

One thing I will note: I was paddocked right next to Chris at the ARRCs, and his prep level is what can be expected out of someone who has turned over every rock in their search for performance. If he says he has the car as light as can be, I would think he's pretty close.

And I also know that as far as I have been able to determine, that a spare no expenses legal build comes in at about 185 -189 crank from that motor. Thats a net of about 155 - 158 at the wheels, and thats being aggressive with the reduction factor. (transaxle).

The nearest car, the 240SX has what, about 150 at the wheels in ITA? But it's inferior in suspension ...not entirely apples to apples.

So if it were to move into A, it should weigh a bit more than that.....like 2775 or so.

[Team SSR]

Jeff,
We like running the 944 in IT, especially the longer races. We may have an oppurtunity to run a GT1 car in the near future. Eventually we would like to be in a pro touring series.

[ChrisCamadella]

One thing I will note: I was paddocked right next to Chris at the ARRCs, and his prep level is what can be expected out of someone who has turned over every rock in their search for performance. If he says he has the car as light as can be, I would think he's pretty close.
[/b]

Why, thanks for the compliment, Jake...




And I also know that as far as I have been able to determine, that a spare no expenses legal build comes in at about 185 -189 crank from that motor. Thats a net of about 155 - 158 at the wheels, and thats being aggressive with the reduction factor. (transaxle).

The nearest car, the 240SX has what, about 150 at the wheels in ITA? But it's inferior in suspension ...not entirely apples to apples.

So if it were to move into A, it should weigh a bit more than that.....like 2775 or so.
[/b]

I'm thinking that might be a good weight in A for the 944 NA 8V - I'm sharpening my pencil...

I DO think that the earlier (pre-85.5) 944 chassis are lighter - you may even be able to make the ITS weight with one of those chassis, particularly with a light cage. The problem is that those chassis have far inferior suspension to the later models (steel control arms, both front and rear), so what you gained on the weight, you'd give up on the handling. I don't think (although it would be legal) that you can update the old chassis to the new suspension - too much stuff changed about the chassis.

[944-spec#94]

I don't think (although it would be legal) that you can update the old chassis to the new suspension - too much stuff changed about the chassis.
[/b]


Actually you can. It is as simple as unbolting the old stuff and bolting the new stuff on. In the rear you would swap the entine t-bar carrier with complete rear suspension and 1/2 shafts. In front you can swap arms only if you use the 85.5 or 86 stuff, but may need to swap spindles too if you want the 87-89 stuff.

My 84 chassis run steel arms in front with the rear suspension from an 87 924S which is infact the same parts as on an 86 944. I could run aluminum front arms, but I prefer the steels due to their non-binding in lowered application (I run below the 5" ITS min ride height) and bend before braking nature of sheet steel. Plus they are so darn cheap $25 each new.

[Fastfred92]

So if it were to move into A, it should weigh a bit more than that.....like 2775 or so.
[/b]

I think a 2700-2750 lbs 944 in ITA would be about right... Then it would be much easier to correct weight up or down to make it fit the ITA profile... As it is now the 944 8v has little chance in ITS and can't benifit from any more weight reduction within the IT ruleset

[Team SSR]

I think reclassifying the 944 fron ITS to ITA would bring more cars. The 944 converts very well into a track car, so a lot of people starting out build them just for DE's or auto X. I think SCCA could attract this crowd if there were some of these cars actually racing in IT.

[924Guy]

Absolutely; there's a lot of 944 racecars out there that could readily cross over into IT at that weight with little or no mods... and some of those drivers may be looking for a more intense racing experience than the other clubs, with more stringent contact rules, where they're currently racing. Or not.

[944-spec#94]

IMHO the 944 8valve cars make great race cars. IT prep is pretty good for the cars except for 1 thing.

MOTOR....

The cars take well to alot of chassis mods and there is a nice aftermarket support for them. The cars are robust and also take a pounding at the track pretty well. The issue is the 25% gain expected from an IT motor. Even when you down rate that to 18% getting more than 135 rwhp from motor in IT trim is not that easy. Some places show it can be done like Milledge, but the costs shoot up to the extreme. I am not sure how these costs compare to other cars, but lack of IT competitive hp is the biggest killer for the 944.


Really the best way to get 944s to run in IT is to class the car in ITA at 2650lbs and limit power to 140 rwhp. The great thing with that is 2650 is not hard weight to achieve and simple rebuild will get you close to 140 rwhp. This makes build a competitive 944 pretty easy. Clearly this kind of thing does not fit in the IT philosphy as you would need to restrict the development of the motor more severly than normally allowed. This would be special adjustment for the 944 and does not meet class intent.

So what is the answer? Hard to say? My car as preppared now is 2600lbs and 134whp is just a bit slower than an ITA 240SX. Of course this is on toyo's with 944 and V710's on the 240SX. Point is that I think 2650lbs sub 140 rwhp 944 would be good match for the 240SX. Putting the car in ITA at 2750 is ok, but the problem is gettign 155 whp is not easy to get and most cars would get run over anyway. So nobody would build it when insead they can run it in places were a 2650lbs 135 whp car is competitive.

[JeffYoung]

That's a good thought but the only way to limit power is an SIR, and we've been down that road before..what a mess.

I'm still not sure I see this car as an A car but if it goes to A it has to go at a weight based on its power potential, not what is easy to get.

[944-spec#94]

...but if it goes to A it has to go at a weight based on its power potential, not what is easy to get.
[/b]

I agree. There in lies the problem however for anybody looking to build 944 for IT racing. No matter the class or weight it needs a "155 whp" motor to be competitive. That costs big money and most would rather race their 944 somewhere else or build another car that is easier to achieve IT target hp.

My 944 could meet the min weight for ITS and if went through the rules line, by line I could probably ensure I comply with not that much work and little loss of speed. However I can't justify the expense of max IT motor. Failing to get one relegates me to back marker so it is more fun to race in group were all the cars have similar motors and hp levels to mine. If I really want to race ITS (or ITA) I'd be looking at at different car.

[JeffYoung]

I understand, but that is a problem all cars face -- a full blow, max out build motor/suspension/etc. is going to cost dollars. A Milledge 944 motor is not cheap, but neither is a Sunbelt Z motor. Hell, a Race Engineering SPEC MIATA motor will set you back $6-7k these days.

So again, if the high cost of building a full prep model is what drives people away from SCCA in their 944, not sure there is much that can be done about that. It's true of all other cars, it's just that most other cars don't have a viable alternative series like 944 Cup to run in.

I would also suggest that where the 944 is harder to build a motor for, it is probably less expensive to max out suspension, brakes and handling.

All cars have pluses and minuses. A minus for the 944 is the cost of a 100% engine effort. However, if one really wanted to race SCCA, we aren't talking about an impossible amount of dollars. It just comes down to issues of choice, and unfortunately the car can't be classed at a particular weight just because it is hard to build the motor to make power necessary at that weight, and because as a result others will go elsewhere.

Why? Because someone WILL build the 155 whp motor at the lower weight and that wouldn't be fair to the other guys at 100% prep levels in other models at the correct process weight.

All that said, I sure would like to see more of those 944 Cup cars in ITS and A. Just don't know how to get them there in a way that doesn't hurt A or S.

[Fastfred92]

I'm still not sure I see this car as an A car but if it goes to A it has to go at a weight based on its power potential, not what is easy to get.
[/b]

Just remember Jeff, this motor does not fit the typical IT process. Much as the talk has been on the 3 rotor in ITR the 944 8v just does not give very much back using legal mods...


944 in ITA for 2007!

[Ron Earp]

Much as the talk has been on the 3 rotor in ITR t
[/b]

Where is there a three rotor in ITR? Did I miss something?

[Knestis]

Using different power factor assumptions for a SINGLE MODEL is a huge step onto the slippery slope of competition adjustments (bleah!).

K

[924Guy]

Yes, the car WILL have to be classed to be very competitive with a Milledge motor, not a home-built. Don't like it, race a Honda. That's the way IT is, it's not just 944's.

The point is, you'll be in the game, if not guaranteed a podium, with a decent (non-Milledge) motor in ITA. Currently, from what I understand, even with a Milledge motor you're struggling to stay mid-pack in ITS. Just a matter of hoping the big guys don't show up - kinda like when I raced the '24 in ITA...

[Fastfred92]

Using different power factor assumptions for a SINGLE MODEL is a huge step onto the slippery slope of competition adjustments (bleah!).

K
[/b]

But exactly what has been done up to now........

And I don't think the RX8 is in ITR but SteveE and Co. have been touting it, then saying dont apply the process to the 3 rotor the same as non rotors

[Andy Bettencourt]

But exactly what has been done up to now........

And I don't think the RX8 is in ITR but SteveE and Co. have been touting it, then saying dont apply the process to the 3 rotor the same as non rotors [/b]

Fred, the RX-8 is not a 3 rotor. The RX-8 will hit ITR when it is eligible...in 2009!

[Ron Earp]

Every car has ups and downs about being competitive. The 944 motor costs a lot to build. Well, so does my Jensen Healey (Lotus) motor but I sort of knew that going into the game. At least you have a lot of positives with a 944 that I don't have, and lots of other folks don't have with their IT cars:

*Strong platform to base a race car on
*Good brakes
*Very cheap shell/part/donor cars
*Availability of said above

And, you just might like to look around at other engine builders. It is a relatively simple motor that is quite common, I'm sure someone other than Milledge knows how to make them go. I looked around outside the norm (for Lotus the norm would be Dave Bean & Huffaker) and found a reasonable guy that knows his Lotus 907s inside and out. Maybe you could try the same.

Just trying to offer a couple of suggestions because I don't see the ITAC changing rules of the IT build, or limiting the build, to suit the circumstance that it takes a 100% build for the car to run mid-pack or better. Competitiveness is not guarenteed.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Fred, I think the issue that you are going to see with the RX8 is not that the gains in IT trim are not the same as other cars (although that appears to be the case). Even if it is, it is irrelevant.

Where I think there is a problem with the RX8 is that the stock numbers Mazda provided are just wrong, way wrong. As much as 15-20 hp high, causing Mazda to lower its published numbers and even offer to buy cars back.

I'm not a Mazda guy, at all, although I do respect (and have learned a lot from) Steve E. Just looking at the raw, provable stock HP numbers, it's pretty clear to me that the RX8 is a good fit in ITR. If it is an overdog when built to the max, the ITAC has a means for a one time fix on weight.

Different issue from the 944 all together in my view. The problem with the 8v is not that the power isn't there, it is just hard to get. 155 whp at 2560 or whatever the weight is plus that suspension and brakes is a decent S car, although I agree it has an uphill battle. At 2750 in A it sure looks strong, especially with the torque that motor makes. Probably a good fit in A at that weight I think, after further (and very limited) consideration.

All that said, the two times I've run NASA I've seen LOTS of 944 cup cars and thought it would be nice to have them in IT. It just needs to happen in a way that doesn't disrupt the ITAC's process.

[Fastfred92]

Ok, so I am wrong on the 3 rotor part but I do think it is a similar situation in that the "typical" hp gains for that engine may not be possible, the % gain is not there either for the 944 (Milledge or otherwise). All i am saying is it is at rock bottom weight in ITS and still not a good fit, why not saddle it with some pounds and put it where it has a reasonable opportunity to develop. I see a bunch of 944's joining our club with the switch to ITA. Start it at a high weight and see where it goes.....

[Knestis]

If the typical factors say that the 944 is a fit in A at (whatever weight), and if it can't reach its formulaic weight in S, it should be an A car.

What that particular engine will or won't make, in terms of IT-prep power gains, is one factor that gets considered when choosing what car to race - but should NOT be when setting its weight. Using different math because nobody has made one make the expected power (or because it costs a bundle to do so) is a problematic approach to managing the category - EVEN IF it puts this particular car at a disadvantage in this respect.

The 944 should handle and stop great and as mentioned, there's a parts supply line and knowledge base for this chassis. Should a model with an inherently bad weight distribution get a break? Should someone running something that requires expensive, handmade, custom bits run at a lighter weight because it's inherently harder to make it competitive?

(Understand here that I'm not a big fan of the hair-splitting "struts vs. A-arms" details that are getting applied. I think they may go a step too far, in and of themselves - even if they are applied by physical attribute rather than to individual models.)

Three steps down that path and we're there, guys - adding and subtracting weight, and making model-specific allowances ("...limit power to 140 rwhp??" - yikes), and based on what? Lap times? Finishing positions? It's not a good trade-off.

K

EDIT - the more I think about this, the more worried I get by the evidence that we are collectively getting sucked into this. I've seen suggestions this winter of things like "the ECU is impossible to tune" get floated as factors that should be considered when classing and spec'ing new cars. Danger, danger, danger.

[944-spec#94]

("...limit power to 140 rwhp??" - yikes), and based on what? Lap times? Finishing positions? It's not a good trade-off.[/b]


I posted that 140 rwhp number for a reason.

If the goal is to get 944 guys to run IT then it is probably the most effective method. However it does not follow the ideals IT was found ong.

Why 140 rwhp? Well in my experince racing the 944 in NASA mid 130's are good numbers for typical builds. These are not the Milledge build, but builds that a simple and easy to achieve. If your goal is to build numbers of certain cars in class you need to look at stuff like this. Problem is that IT IS a Comp Adjustment!


Now I think you will never see the kind of 944 driver numbers in IT at any weight or class for a simple reason.

1) Cost to build a competitive IT motor
2) Other options were that competitive IT motor is not required.

Right now you can race 944 with sub 140 hp motor and be competitive in NASA (2 spec classes, 2 mixed Mfg classes), PCA (3-4 classes) and POC(2-4 classes). Heck even on the West coast you can run a 944 in SCCA 944 only class and win with 135 rwhp.

Point is while the 944 chassis has alot going for it that makes it cost effective to run in IT takes alot $$$ in the motor and when you have other places to race, but not need that $$$$ motor it will take away alot of the casual racers. IT is great since it is place race a toyota whatever. Not many other places you can race one of those wit competition.

Here in Arizona for example I can race my 944 with its 134.2 whp motor 3-4 weekends per month with less than 6 hr tow and be competitive. None of those are in ITS. So why should I built a IT motor when I can lots of fun and track time without one.

This is not to say racing IT is bad, but it is a large factor in why you may never see lots of 944 in IT. As I said before if you chose to race a car that does not have as many classes to race in IT looks alot better.

[Fastfred92]

Kirk et al
My argument is that this is not a slippery slope, per Jake, Andy and the other important guys we know the 944's numbers, why else was the process weight adjusted in ITS? Problem lies with the "process" weight is at the very bottom of a hypothetical curve for that car and is just not realistic without illegal weight removal. Why not adjust the weight up that curve to make a better fit in the next class down?? I think most folks here admit the 944 is a tweener so why punish it and err torwards the higher class. There is boatloads of these cars out in race track land, why not capture their entry fees? The lowly P 914 has slid all the way down the IT scale without dire results as has your MkIII, lets move on the 944 for 07

[lateapex911]

Well, feel free to write a letter and request it.

The ITAC won't ....and can't be concerned with the cost of building a motor to the same limits that other cars build to. If cost is the reason you think the car should be moved, that aint gonna happen, for the reasons listed above. (And I am very aware that a 944 ITS motor from Milledge will run over $20K with Motec. Gag...)

Limiting power isn't something that the ITAC likes either. Heck, when the CRB (sorry gus) decided that the E36 needed an SIR, I called Jeff and Ron and said..."So, lets talk about that list of cars you have for a class above ITS...think the E36 would fit in there with no restrictions, big wheels and less weight?" Yup....nobody likes artificially limiting HP in IT land. Maybe we're just old fashioned...

The ITAC tried very hard to create performance envelopes for each class, and have them be close enough to each other for seamless classing. But it wasn't easy as the structure was existing, and we tried to be very careful with the moving of cars and weight adjustments...

Which brings us to weight....if the letter writer suggests, and research backs the claim up, that the car just can't make it's process weight, then the ITAC has to take a serious look and consider options.


Other related comments:
-The process and the formula: The process does take into account the physical attributes of the car and it's engine. Major factors are considered, (FWD vs RWD), and engine type is too. However, it's not so fine a process as to spit out different numbers for air cooled 6 and water cooled inline 6 cylinder engines, for example. Which is too bad, in a way, and why you'll probably never see a Porsche 911 in IT.

The rotaries have, over the years, proven themselves as overacheivers. Now, if we applied standard process to them, they'd clean up. So clearly the process must take into account such factors. But.....it mustn't assume that just because the engine is a rotary, that it will yeild the same gains as it's brethren from 20 years ago.

So, yes, to some degree, where there is only one model of a particular physical attribute, there will be model specific process applications...until another car comes along with the same attributes.

[Bildon]

>> One of the things I don't understand is how the RX-7s just go faster and faster

Perhaps I can safely say this in the P-car forum without being run over.

I've had guys come up to me and tell me how easy it is to port the RX7 motors slightly to get big gains. Oh and then they go on to say how no tech inspector will ever see it... It's actually weird how many times I've been told this. Now, I have no experience with rotary motors, but if this is true, it may explain how some RX7s continue to go faster. :unsure: You know, kinda like when all the Volvos stopped braking valve springs and started going faster as a result. :P

[lateapex911]

Mazda guy here...

I'm not saying that porting is, or is not the reason,....

But, as a point of info, a little porting goes a long way.

As far as I know, I have never heard of a rotary tear down occuring in the past 10 or so years anywhere in the country. Maybe it's happened, but it's news to me if it did.

As far as tech inspectors finding porting, I have to think that if I were to be called on a ported motor at the only place where they do such checks, I'd scream foul, and insist on a full teardown with the Region/officials posting the bond. Why?? because I don't think that sticking your finger in and probing around is conclusive in any way.

They Atlanta region uses a "go/no go" guage to check exhaust ports, and pulls the intakes off for a finger prope test for the intake ports. This is on the 12A engine (ITA/7) only. From what the tech officials told me, there is no guage availabe for the 13B, so those are left unexamined.

So, is porting easy in a 13B? yes...and it appears it's pretty easy to get away with too.

The only real way to find out and clear the air is for an ITS guy to post the bond and have a look.

That said, I'm not all that suspicious that the gains that people see are either there in the first place, or if they are there, that they're due to porting.

[Bildon]

>> because I don't think that sticking your finger in and probing around is conclusive in any way.

Exactly what I was told.

>> the gains that people see <not> due to porting.

To be clear, I&#39;m no rotary guy, I&#39;m not accusing anyone or even suggesting the fast guys cheat. From what I&#39;ve seen the fastest car are all VERY well prepared. You&#39;d see beaters running up front if it was that easy to make them fast. I&#39;m just throwing the info out there for general consumption.

If a whole group knows they have an engine that has an easy HP bump available and that is very hard to police, you know there are those that will take advantage. Similar to the 2L problem we have in ITB with VW Golf mk2s. Crank are $200 on Ebay. It&#39;s just too easy. This is why I was crying for tear downs earlier in the year.

[JeffYoung]

Rick Thompson has been torn down, but that is a 12A. He passed.

[lateapex911]

Interesting. I missed that. I have also heard today about another teardown of a 13B at the ARRCs a few years ago.

I wonder how the teardowns were actually handled.

It seems to me that pulling it apart is step one. Procuring a stock side plate from Mazda directly, then creating a mold or template would be the most definitive method of deciding legality.

Anyone know how it actually went down...?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok, so I am wrong on the 3 rotor part but I do think it is a similar situation in that the "typical" hp gains for that engine may not be possible, the % gain is not there either for the 944 (Milledge or otherwise). All i am saying is it is at rock bottom weight in ITS and still not a good fit, why not saddle it with some pounds and put it where it has a reasonable opportunity to develop. I see a bunch of 944&#39;s joining our club with the switch to ITA. Start it at a high weight and see where it goes..... [/b]

Fred,

Your point/request has merit. The 944 classification &#39;correction&#39; was done using known best of breed numbers (Milledge) so it really does fit in ITS - HOWEVER, if it can&#39;t get to the new weight, it should be moved to ITA at a new weight. Would people drive these in ITA at 2800?

[Team SSR]

YES! But we would ask for 2750 :)

[ryoji]

944Cup requrires minimum weight of 2800 if it is a SCCA rule setup car. If you are targeting guys running the Cup to come, 2750 - 2800 would be a nice number.

[latebrake]

944Cup requrires minimum weight of 2800 if it is a SCCA rule setup car. If you are targeting guys running the Cup to come, 2750 - 2800 would be a nice number.
[/b]

Royoji, your so skinny all you have to do is take out some bar bells and you are ready to go. How did that trans Jesse and I helped you install do? :114:
Lawrence

[lateapex911]

Did any 944s in that spec run at Lime Rock? Times?

[Fastfred92]

Would people drive these in ITA at 2800?
[/b]

Andy

My guess is you would see increased participation by the hordes of NASA, PCA, et. etc 944 guys. My gut feel is that 2700 or so would be closer to right given whats already know about this car, I am still of the opinion that the suspension ( t bars ) is more of a handicap than anybody has given credit for.

Start at 2800, that would be fine.... thats what 200 lbs over the Acura guys and my guess is that they can get pretty darn close hp #&#39;s, just going to be short in the torque department.

Has anybody submitted this to the board???????

[Knestis]

...Start at 2800 ...[/b]

If the process says "2800," then it should be 2800. I just feel the powerful need to point out instances where it&#39;s suggested - or even hinted at - that there will or should be adjustments after the fact.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy

My guess is you would see increased participation by the hordes of NASA, PCA, et. etc 944 guys. My gut feel is that 2700 or so would be closer to right given whats already know about this car, I am still of the opinion that the suspension ( t bars ) is more of a handicap than anybody has given credit for.

Start at 2800, that would be fine.... thats what 200 lbs over the Acura guys and my guess is that they can get pretty darn close hp #&#39;s, just going to be short in the torque department.

Has anybody submitted this to the board??????? [/b]

Using known Milledge crank numbers, the process puts this car right at 2805 for ITA. I would think that ~160whp is doable with the full-tilt boogie - so it would have around a 15whp advantage and decent torque advantage over the Tegs. Not to mention 50-50 weight distribution and HUGE brakes compared to most.

This was considered when it got corrected but no such request has been submitted to move it to ITA.
(On edit) My &#39;process numbers do not take into account &#39;adders&#39; when moving to ITA.

[lateapex911]

Interesting...I ran the process quickly, and I came up with 2790.5....LOL. Andy, we might have to compare our Milledge crank hp numbers..we&#39;re off 1 or 2... ;)

[RSTPerformance]

I just skimmed the end of this post, and I am sorry that I havn&#39;t "stayed tuned" to this whole post... Later I will try to read more, but from quick review I am VERY WORRIED about where ITS is heading... right into ITA.

It seems to me like winning cars (top 50%) are getting moved into ITA all the time, and this one looks to be another posability you all are concidering. Take a step back and look at the "creep" that continues to happen. SOOOOO many ITA cars that are already classed have no chance in heck (full 100% build) at keeping up with the front runners, and we keep adding ITS tweeners in. ITR was created, keep ITS cars where they are and if need be add some weight to the top dogs or remove weight from them and move them to ITR. Do the same with some of the ITA cars that have already been moved or classed already and bring things back to reality for the rest of the ITA cars that are being left in the dust and can&#39;t go to ITB because the HUGE gap in performance potential that currently exists.

ITA keeps getting faster and all the other classes are staying the same. Soon the gap between ITB and ITA will be able to fit 2 classes, nevermind one and ITA will be faster than the ITS cars if they are not already.

Sorry, the coment might be out of place, but these "tweeners" need to stop moving just so they can win, and yes we (My dad) has a 944 in the build process, and I still don&#39;t think they should all move.

Raymond

[latebrake]

My 944 E/P car ran an Erik Maden engine with a milledge head and cam. no balance shafts with 10.9 pistons and did 186hp on a good engine dyno and 152 at the wheels. the trans was a little trick so i didnt drop the IT 20% to the ground. I dont think an ITS engine is going to get 160 to the ground unless it is very fresh and something ???? :snow_cool: a top legal 944 with a milledge engine is 185 hp at the fly wheel. you can count on a solid 20% drop for a net of 148 whp. I know all you have to work with is math but that is real world # on the car I had. Erik Madsen finished 2nd at the nationals in E/P in 05 and is a good wrench and worked with Jon Milledge to develop the engine and trans for the car. If you are putting more than 150 whp on an 8/v 944 in IT trim you got to be pulling my leg just a little i think. :lol: just food for thought

LAWRENCE

[Andy Bettencourt]

I just skimmed the end of this post, and I am sorry that I havn&#39;t "stayed tuned" to this whole post... Later I will try to read more, but from quick review I am VERY WORRIED about where ITS is heading... right into ITA.

It seems to me like winning cars (top 50%) are getting moved into ITA all the time, and this one looks to be another posability you all are concidering. Take a step back and look at the "creep" that continues to happen. SOOOOO many ITA cars that are already classed have no chance in heck (full 100% build) at keeping up with the front runners, and we keep adding ITS tweeners in. ITR was created, keep ITS cars where they are and if need be add some weight to the top dogs or remove weight from them and move them to ITR. Do the same with some of the ITA cars that have already been moved or classed already and bring things back to reality for the rest of the ITA cars that are being left in the dust and can&#39;t go to ITB because the HUGE gap in performance potential that currently exists.

ITA keeps getting faster and all the other classes are staying the same. Soon the gap between ITB and ITA will be able to fit 2 classes, nevermind one and ITA will be faster than the ITS cars if they are not already.

Sorry, the coment might be out of place, but these "tweeners" need to stop moving just so they can win, and yes we (My dad) has a 944 in the build process, and I still don&#39;t think they should all move.

Raymond [/b]

Ray,

Can you name an ITS winner that has moved to ITA? I don&#39;t think so. The general core car in ITA is an 140hp sport compact. The cars that have been winning ITA for YEARS - still are. The Teg, the CRX and the 240SX are all still WINNERS. No NX2000, 2.0L 16V Golf or Neon ever won an ITS race (that wasn&#39;t a rainout - ok, never say never but really.)

Help us out with the ITA cars that have no chance (and that information exists for - and that people want to race). And when you tell me the Capri you guys used to run, I would GUESS it didn&#39;t have 1/2 the development Greg&#39;s NX has. That 2.8L would rock at some big tracks if it was built to the hilt.

These cars are not &#39;tweeners&#39;, they are ITA cars that were rediculously misclassed in ITS. Look at the times from the ARRC and you will see a proper seperation in times. ITA got faster in the Northeast by 10ths this year - in perfect conditions...just 10ths from Serra&#39;s records.

The 944 IS a tweener. 158 stock HP is well outside of ITA - but HP potential in IT prep is well below most all other cars, putting it closer to ITA power to weight targets that to ITS.

If there are ITA cars that you think should be in ITB, by all means, put them up here - post the specs and we can debate it but the cars in ITA now should have NEVER been in ITS.


ITA keeps getting faster and all the other classes are staying the same. Soon the gap between ITB and ITA will be able to fit 2 classes, nevermind one and ITA will be faster than the ITS cars if they are not already.[/b]
I wanted to pull this out specifically. A very short-sighted view Ray! Take a look at trends across the country. Records get set every year. Didn&#39;t a &#39;come-out-once-in-a-blue-moon&#39; Opal dominate you guys at NHIS recently? Maybe ITB is getting faster. It&#39;s short sighted to use local results under a microscope.

[Greg Amy]

...I am VERY WORRIED about where ITS is heading... right into ITA.[/b]

cue rolleyes...

[RSTPerformance]

Its just a concern I have... No doubt, I DO think that you guys are doing a great job creating the class ITA. You also did well moving a few cars into ITB, and you have done well getting ITR off the blocks. However I do get concern as ITS is now dead, and maybe it was before, we just didn&#39;t see it cause cars like the 944 and (Absolutely no offence) Greg in the egg were finishing in respectful positions even though they were several seconds off the front runners.

I do like the new process and maybe I am worrying to much... All I ask is that everyone is very hesitant before moving any tweeners, just because someone has invested lots of $$$ and prove that a car can&#39;t win and wants to become a front runner dosn&#39;t justify making a car competitive in a "slower" class. NOT all cars will be, no matter how much we all want them to be (even I wish that). We can not deny that several of the cars that have been re-classed have been instant front runners, and this car I certainly think could fit into that catagory.

Raymond "When the RX-7 and MR2 get moved to ITB (Its a matter of time), add 200lbs to my Audi and move me to ITC..." Blethen

OH PS: Sorry for getting this off topic, If I did so... Didn&#39;t mean to.

[Knestis]

... just because someone has invested lots of $$$ and prove that a car can&#39;t win and wants to become a front runner dosn&#39;t justify making a car competitive in a "slower" class. ...[/b]

No, no, a thousand times no.

Andy and the ITAC&#39;ers keep demonstrating that they are being faithful to the process, while all around them IT entrants keep demonstrating that they can&#39;t get past the presumption that classing and weights should get (or are getting) set based on what they have done on the track.

If the 944 is a 2800# ITA car, then it&#39;s a 2800# ITA car. If the mechanical attributes say that it should be a 2700# ITA car, then that&#39;s what it is.

Now that said, I am NOT particularly comfortable with the "engine builder X gets this power" approach. Back when we were first talking about doing a formulaic system, the assumption was going to be that generally, IT prep got X% and driveline losses were like Y%.

We&#39;ve progressively tried to get more accurate, going through phases of "&#39;70s technology cars gain X%, more modern ones gain Z%," to now where we start to see things like, "I would think that ~160whp is doable with the full-tilt boogie" - for specific car models. Just like, "if the process says 2800, it should be 2800," if the general math says "160whp," that figure should be used in the math. If it&#39;s "Builder Bob says 160," THAT I am a little anxious about...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Its just a concern I have... No doubt, I DO think that you guys are doing a great job creating the class ITA. You also did well moving a few cars into ITB, and you have done well getting ITR off the blocks. However I do get concern as ITS is now dead, and maybe it was before, we just didn&#39;t see it cause cars like the 944 and (Absolutely no offence) Greg in the egg were finishing in respectful positions even though they were several seconds off the front runners.

I do like the new process and maybe I am worrying to much... All I ask is that everyone is very hesitant before moving any tweeners, just because someone has invested lots of $$$ and prove that a car can&#39;t win and wants to become a front runner dosn&#39;t justify making a car competitive in a "slower" class. NOT all cars will be, no matter how much we all want them to be (even I wish that). We can not deny that several of the cars that have been re-classed have been instant front runners, and this car I certainly think could fit into that catagory.

Raymond "When the RX-7 and MR2 get moved to ITB (Its a matter of time), add 200lbs to my Audi and move me to ITC..." Blethen

OH PS: Sorry for getting this off topic, If I did so... Didn&#39;t mean to. [/b]

Why do you say ITS is dead? At last check it was the second largest IT class in your region...well ahead of ITB.

Ray, you know as well as anyone that in Regional IT racing where driver ability and car prep vary so much that you can come in the top 10 and be 5 seconds off the leader. Just because Greg had some top 10&#39;s in ITS doesn&#39;t mean it was an ITS car.

The ITAC and the CRB do NOT move cars based on results. You need to read this thread in full to find out how the discussion progressed.

The WHOLE POINT of the process is that IN THEORY, a top developed car with a top driver has a shot at the win. Greg&#39;s car was a 4-year project with more development than almost any IT car in NER. It adds up perfectly. This isn&#39;t Production where we class cars conservatively and &#39;inch&#39; them toward the peak - then handicap them when they win. We class them with a goal of equality - and changes don&#39;t come.

And I will add that if the RX-7 and MR-2 go to ITB - and they have the same hp/weight numbers as the current cars in ITB (with additional consideration for out-of-the-ordinary charateristics: as in any class) why would you want to move?






No, no, a thousand times no.

Andy and the ITAC&#39;ers keep demonstrating that they are being faithful to the process, while all around them IT entrants keep demonstrating that they can&#39;t get past the presumption that classing and weights should get (or are getting) set based on what they have done on the track.[/b]

Correct. 1000 times correct.


Now that said, I am NOT particularly comfortable with the "engine builder X gets this power" approach. Back when we were first talking about doing a formulaic system, the assumption was going to be that generally, IT prep got X% and driveline losses were like Y%.[/b]

Well unfortunately, I disagree. When we &#39;know&#39; something, we know it. Otherwise, the 101 stock hp 12A RX-7 would be running rings around everything in ITB at about 2150lbs. NO WAY!


We&#39;ve progressively tried to get more accurate, going through phases of "&#39;70s technology cars gain X%, more modern ones gain Z%," to now where we start to see things like, "I would think that ~160whp is doable with the full-tilt boogie" - for specific car models. Just like, "if the process says 2800, it should be 2800," if the general math says "160whp," that figure should be used in the math. If it&#39;s "Builder Bob says 160," THAT I am a little anxious about...

K [/b]

Remember, the Process is not predicated on WHP numbers - it&#39;s built (albiet flawed) on crank numbers. My comment on the 160whp was an estimate based on the &#39;known&#39; max from one of these motors at 185-190 crank hp. Guys claim a 20% loss so 153-155whp may be more likely but it&#39;s a moot point WRT the Process.

[RussJones]

Quote Ray " ITS is now dead"

Ray, on the contrary, I left ITS in 2002 (black 944) and felt in those days things were starting to fizzle out. When i came back last year (red 944S) i was overwhelmed at : A) the number of participants B) the number of quality front runner drivers C) close lap times. At the Narcc last year we had something like 9 cars that qualified within .05 sec, now thats good racing. We have in NE, at least 15-20 ITS cars per race, and there are a solid 6-7 that can win, other classes you pretty much know ahead of time who will win.

So I wouldn&#39;t worry about ITS.

PS-I think the 2 e-36&#39;s that run would be smart in staying with ITS not go to ITR.

Russ

[Knestis]

...When we &#39;know&#39; something, we know it. Otherwise, the 101 stock hp 12A RX-7 would be running rings around everything in ITB at about 2150lbs. NO WAY! ...[/b]
But the RX7 has an entirely different TYPE of powerplant, so that&#39;s an adjustment to a physical attribute, rather than a make/model. I&#39;m cool with that.

However, when we start diddling with the differences between how one manufacturer&#39;s DOHC engine might gain power vs. another&#39;s DOHC engine, then we are on dangerous ground, I think. I&#39;ve seen evidence of this creeping into the conversation.

I&#39;ll be careful how I word this but, the point at which the level of granularity of adjustments to the process reaches the make/model, the PCA system becomes de facto competition adjustments.

Bleah.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

But the RX7 has an entirely different TYPE of powerplant, so that&#39;s an adjustment to a physical attribute, rather than a make/model. I&#39;m cool with that.[/b]

Well, yes and no. Mostly no I think. The new Renesis 13B is very maximized from the factory. Every data point from GAC teams show it&#39;s power potential in IT-like trim is very limited, so it&#39;s not just that each TYPE of engine gets X as a hard and fast rule.



I&#39;ll be careful how I word this but, the point at which the level of granularity of adjustments to the process reaches the make/model, the PCA system becomes de facto competition adjustments.

Bleah.

K [/b]

Unfortunatley, a hard and fast formula can never work IMHO so if we know something that could be part of the process - so that we could proactivly avoid a PCA down the line, that is a win/win. We have said it a million times, it will never be perfect and most cars are classed using the tried and true 25% increase...but if we classed all rotories at the 20% Renesis increase, the other cars would be overdogs. If we classed all rotories at the 50% increase the 12A sees, all the others would be hopeless underdogs.

Call them &#39;proactive&#39; comp adjustments if you will, but IMHO it is the right thing to try and get it right the FIRST time - especially if you aren&#39;t going to change it in the future. Knowledge is power.

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

I strongly trust your recomendations, and your judgement on the future of all IT classes, so I will not rant , I just wanted to jump in and say be careful. I think I got that across. I think that I do understand the process, and I DO think that it has worked (gregs car for example fits perfect IMO with the others in the front of the ITA class). I do think though that several cars could fit into two classes, and you and the others should be weary of just populating the currently most popular class, ITA.

Thank you guys for the replies, and puting me back on track after my spin ;)

Raymond

[lateapex911]

I see Kirks point, of course.

The rotary thing is a great example. On the face of it, the engines are both rotaries, so they get the same hp bump assumption right??

Uh, no. While they are both rotaries, there are significant architectural differences in the way the sub systems function, and that essentially changes the potential for increased output. It actually changes what the engine is.

While the old rotaries had the limiting issues in areas that were legal to be changed, the limiting issues in the Renesis aren&#39;t modifiable within the IT ruleset.

So, in essence, they are different animals.

How do we deal wth that?

Well, we realize that the physical properties ARE different, and adapt the process around those proeperties, what we know the capabilities are, and will be. Unfortunatley, (or fortunately) the example pool is rather thin: 1 example. So it might appear that the process is being noodled on a car to car basis.

Regarding the 944, it is unique in it&#39;s own way. And actually, the process fails it, and others like it. The 911 is rather badly represented by the process as well, and as it was a recent addition, based on a request, we won&#39;t see any of those cars hit the track. And thats too bad.

The entire idea of the process was to predict, as closely as possible, the power potential, and the success lies in the accurate determination of the factors that go into that. If we know the potential, it behooves us to take serious consideration of it.

In the 944s case, we are very certain of our info.

[RSTPerformance]

In the 944s case, we are very certain of our info.
[/b]


That seems to be said a lot by the ITAC, and suprisingly I have to support that statement and trust it. Based on decisions made so far (especially with one certain car) you were correct on your data and it showed as any changes you have made thus far have been a benefit to the club as a whole.

Raymond

[dickita15]

Raymond, two things about ITS.
First locally we saw a lot of top drivers move on in the last two years, that is just natural but temporary.

Secondly and more importantly the ITAC just changed the way they view front wheel drive cars in the higher classes. I think they realized in these higher HP classes that FWD needs a little weight break. I think over the next couple of years this will bring a number of new cars.

[Knestis]

...the shift in the FWD basic factors in S being a great example of the process applied to a "type" or general characteristic. A good use of the system.

K

[Fastfred92]

This was considered when it got corrected but no such request has been submitted to move it to ITA.
[/b]

Has now! I am used to having my request turned down so lets see....

[924Guy]

Has now! I am used to having my request turned down so lets see....
[/b]

I seem to already recall putting in a vote of support for a previous motoin to move it to ITA, which was shot down (within the past 2 years); regardless, I naturally plan to put in my vote again on this one!! :dead_horse:

[Fastfred92]

I seem to already recall putting in a vote of support for a previous motoin to move it to ITA, which was shot down (within the past 2 years); regardless, I naturally plan to put in my vote again on this one!! :dead_horse:
[/b]


vote early and vote often!

[944-spec#94]

Regarding the 944, it is unique in it&#39;s own way. And actually, the process fails it, and others like it. [/b]

Jake I think you are quite right.


The 2.5L 8valve 944 is a great racing platform. It has lots of really nice things going for it that make it a wonderfull car to race and in certin forms actually very cost effective.


The issue is that it simply does not fit well in the current performance targets of ITS and ITA. We in 944 spec had the luxury of creating a racing rule set for the 944 to maximize it strengths and minimize its weakness. The result has been lots of fun racing my 84 chassis for the past 4 years and alot of others getting into the 944 racing game.

IT classes are not based around 1 or two cars, but around certain performance and mechanical configuration ideals. There always needs to be some cut off between one class and the other and some cars fall between these classes. The result is a car that may a be a great racing platform, but not competitive to run, build or maintain in either class.

So I think the weight reductions are a step in the right direction. Maybe ITA is even better? In the end however the 944 needs to be classed where the process puts it. If it is not competitive or cost effective to build for that class then that is just too bad. While it maybe alot of fun to have lots 944 racing in IT you can sell the soul of IT by giving it some crazy rules allowance to do so.

In any mixed class with different types of cars there are always cars that are more competitive and cost effective. Thankfully not every one chooses the "easy" way and they pick something a little different to create some color for the class. Even so in class with 50 legal cars seeing 10 of them built in any significant number is great diversity. Sadly those other 40 are probably just not worth it. They still need to be classed and with full 100% build they should be able to win, but if they merely "hard to build" there is little that can be done.

So in the end I don&#39;t believe the goal of ITAC should be to get more 944 in IT, but merely to ensure that a 100% build 944 can run with the other 100% build cars in its class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So in the end I don&#39;t believe the goal of ITAC should be to get more 944 in IT, but merely to ensure that a 100% build 944 can run with the other 100% build cars in its class.

[/b]

What a post. A perfect example of someone who gets the 10,000 foot view as well as the local view.



To your last statement...if we can accomplish the 2nd half, the first should/could follow...and that is the goal.

[lateapex911]

Jake I think you are quite right.
...................

So in the end I don&#39;t believe the goal of ITAC should be to get more 944 in IT, but merely to ensure that a 100% build 944 can run with the other 100% build cars in its class.

[/b]

Yup! Great post! And there are TWO great points there....;)

The KEY to the last statement I bolded for us.

And right now, I&#39;m thinking that is NOT the case....and not because what I have or have not observed from on track performance.

If the car can&#39;t make the weight....and evidence suggests that&#39;s the case, then we need to fine tune things and take a fresh look.

Look, if we put it in ITA at 3500 pounds, nobody would worry about it being an overdog, right? So fears should be allayed by the proper use of the process.

I think that this car is one that could fit in ITA well at the right weight. Spec for spec it aligns pretty well with the 240SX.

(One side issue that wsa alluded to by Joe is the ability of a one marque/one model ruleset to fine tune to the car...we can&#39;t do that, but certain allowances of the 944 ruleset are against the IT philosophy, like the replaceable A arms. So we might not get lots of crossover....and thats a shame, but it doesn&#39;t mean that we shouldn&#39;t try to get the car in the right class at the right weight, and let things fall where they may.)

[Fastfred92]

So in the end I don&#39;t believe the goal of ITAC should be to get more 944 in IT, but merely to ensure that a 100% build 944 can run with the other 100% build cars in its class.
[/b]


That is, in fact, the point! To have the 944 in a place where a 100% build is on a "rules" equal footing with the rest of the class... The addition of a bunch of 944&#39;s is simply a byproduct of this.. Everybody I have spoken with or talked with on boards has agreed that a 944 is a tweener and could operate in either class but the problem here is that the class weight for S is just not realistic.. If you add weight to the car it fits the process just fine in A. Agree on the process weight and move it....

[944-spec#94]

What a post. A perfect example of someone who gets the 10,000 foot view as well as the local view.
[/b]

Thanks, :P



To your last statement...if we can accomplish the 2nd half, the first should/could follow...and that is the goal.
[/b]


This may not always be the case if that 100% build costs 3x what it does for the other 100% cars in class. HOWEVER the corellary is nearly always ture. If a 100% build car CAN&#39;T complete vs the others 100% cars then few people will ever build one even if costs 1/3 the price.


With respect to some weight numbers and what can be achieved.

my Chassis is an 84. This weekend I went over the scales with 40lbs of ballast low fuel (but still may 2 gallons in the tank) 2633 was the number both days. I am about 165 with full gear. My class min is 2600lbs

Below is complitation of a few things told another racer looking to lose weight in his 944 (his target was a 200lbs driver and 2550lbs min which would be strech in my mind). This applies to 944 spec rules so you can see what of the kind of things we allow that IT may not. Hopefully it will help with the discussion on the ability for a 944 to get to 2575lbs in IT trim.

----
I figure I can do the following to cut some more weight . (from 2633 my 155 weight)
1) Remove 40 lbs of ballast -40 => 2593 lbs
2) Light weight batter vs stock - 15 lbs => 2577lbs
3) Remove door glass & door panels (motors & arms gone already) - 15 lbs => 2562 lbs (I would probably stop here since would be close to min and like have the pass seat for rides.
4) Remove pass seat & heavy mounting -15 => 2547lbs
5) Tackle remaining interior goop - 5lbs => 2542lbs
6) Remaing emissions crap in engine - 1lbs => 2541lbs
7) fresh air blower motor and heater box - 6lbs => 2535lbs
8) Aluminum mount bar for my turbo oil cooler vs steel - 1lbs => 2534lbs
9) After this I would just start looking alot more closely at everything. I am pretty sure I could take away 5-10lbs more lbs if I had time to really study it more. Given I add ballast now I have given up the search for more weight reduction.

944 spec class limitations
1) Mirrors must be stock on the outside. IE full flag mirrors, inside can be anything
2) Body panels must remain steel
3) Bumpers must be stock
4) No lexan allow in windshield, rear hatch or qtr windows.
5) Cutting away large bits of the metal shell is really frowned upon (don&#39;t do it)
6) Stock gauges must remain.

944 Spec Allowances
1) Everything that is bolted down and is not needed to operate the car
2) All coatings both inside the car and under the car
3) The 40lbs of heat shielding between the engine and firewall.
4) A/C and all parts
5) heater and all associated parts
6) Body mouldings including front & rear bumper pads
7) powersteering and all related parts
8) Door glass and all related parts. (Please keep the stock door bar for safety)
9) Lightweight battery (instock location only)
10) Any bits of wire harness that was used for removad components
11) All misc brackets used to support removed parts
12) Windshield wipers, motors & linkages (BTW... you can races safely with just a driver&#39;s side wiper)
13) All headliner and or sunroof parts (must fix in place stock roof panel)
14) rear hatch motor and related parts (use key to open rear hatch)
15) hood and hatch lift shocks
16) Replace heavy cast iron headers with ligher stock tube headers
17) Cat replaced with Test pipe
18) Replace muffer with straight pipe (must meet local sound limits however)
19) Driver&#39;s seat only with Aluminum Side rails
20) 1.75 x .095 DOM custom cage with close eye paid to not "jungle gym" the car with 500 tubes.
21) "Late 944" smaller lighter starter motor.
22) headlights & all parts
23) windshield washer tank

[latebrake]

:018: they aint going to let you do all that and run IT i dont think. Has anyone looked at the best times of the top ITA cars like the 240sx and a fully build 944 at ITS weight? are they close? i know you dont use times as a basis for class but you have to be real about it too.

[Andy Bettencourt]

:018: they aint going to let you do all that and run IT i dont think. Has anyone looked at the best times of the top ITA cars like the 240sx and a fully build 944 at ITS weight? are they close? i know you dont use times as a basis for class but you have to be real about it too. [/b] Unless you can prove each car was prepped and driven &#39;properly&#39;, on-track data is virtually useless. Even the ARRC (where top drivers and top cars tend to congregate) could never be used as a single data point. Lots of data, used to see trends is about all we can hope for. And even at that, we HAVE to rely on the process. As an ITA driver - I think this is a legit ITA car at around 2800 give or take 50 based on &#39;adders&#39;. I would love to see some more running.

[Knestis]

...This may not always be the case if that 100% build costs 3x what it does for the other 100% cars in class. HOWEVER the corellary is nearly always ture. If a 100% build car CAN&#39;T complete vs the others 100% cars then few people will ever build one even if costs 1/3 the price. ...[/b]
As true as your corollary might be, there should be NO consideration of cost when classifying/specifying IT cars.

It sounds like a 2800+/- pound 944 fits in A. If it got moved, the next question would be, "How many people are interested in building one?"

K

[dickita15]

It sounds like a 2800+/- pound 944 fits in A. If it got moved, the next question would be, "How many people are interested in building one?"
K
[/b]
Ahh and here is the problem with classifying tweeners. According to the Process the car fits in two classes. The higher class is at a weight that may be hard to achieve for many cars. In the lower class the car has to run heavy, and the ITAC needs to make a guess at which class/weight drivers would rather race. Odds are no matter which way they decide some drivers will not like the decision and will not race the car.

If we trust the process, and if a car truly fits in either class using the process why not just class it in both at the appropriate weights and let the market decide.

Trust the process

[Fastfred92]

"How many people are interested in building one?"
[/b]


My guess is that alot of them have already been built for other clubs.....

My next guess is that the "market" is going to opt for the heavy weight ITA over the light weight ITS that most will never get down to.....

[lateapex911]

Luke...........

"Trust the process......trust the process..."

[latebrake]

All of this sounds like a very good thing for the 944. they can run in scca ita and nasa 944 cup with just a change in some weight in the floor. jump to its if they feel up to it at a lower weight. sooner or later they will settle on where they like best and some of the cars will run with the SCCA as well as other clubs. win win for the car either way.

I have played with these cars for a few years now and would consider building one for ita if its approved

Lawrence

[jsilverman]

It sounds like a 2800+/- pound 944 fits in A. If it got moved, the next question would be, "How many people are interested in building one?"
[/b]
Ive been building my 924s for DE over the last 6 months. If the 924/944 gets bumped down to ITA, thats where Id be racing when I do finally make that switch in a year or two.

[Knestis]

... If we trust the process, and if a car truly fits in either class using the process why not just class it in both at the appropriate weights and let the market decide.

Trust the process
[/b]
What was consensus on dual classifications? Hmmm.

If the argument for listing something fat in A is that it "can&#39;t make the S formula weight," then move it. If the argument is "it&#39;s hard to build a car that makes weight in S" or "it&#39;s expensive to...", then it needs to stay in S. Which does it seem to be for the 944?

Someone has ask if, in the aggregate, we improve the quality of the category and club racing program by dual-listing. If we do - and despite the fact that I&#39;m not a fan, I don&#39;t KNOW whether that&#39;s the case - then dual listing should be standard practice in all cases where the math makes it feasible. If that argument doesn&#39;t stand, it questions whether dual classification is a good thing for just this option.

I trust the process. I don&#39;t trust inconsistent applications of the process, or arguments that get applied to single makes/models of car.

If I could save the hundreds (and hundreds) of hours and $$ necessary to try to get the Golf III down to ITB weight (and fail, so far) by having the option of running 300 pounds heavier in ITC, I might choose to do that. Is that option, for all of us, good for the program?

Or is the 944 a 2800# A car and ONLY a 2800# A car?

K

[944-spec#94]

My thoughts are the 944 would be more popular in ITA at 2800lbs.

Why?

A 100% build car might be fine in ITS at 2575lbs
A 100% build car might be fine in ITA at 2800lbs

Now... that meets the primary goal of ITAC and that is to ensure a 100% car is competitive.

So lets consider what people might perfer to build.

Race a lighter car in a faster class?

or

race it a bit heaver vs "slower" cars. Seems to me that given the effort it takes to get to 2575 that the average 80% build car and driver would be happer being mid pack in ITA at 2800lbs vs being back of the pack in ITS at 2680lbs. While ITAC must class for 100% build it is really the 80 to 90% build cars that form the bulk of the fields so I think a weak motor simple build 944 would be better in ITA were it only gives up hp vs being in ITS were it gives up hp and has a hard time getting to min weight.

Or consider it another way

ITS 944 at 2575lbs
Suspension/brake prep ... Not that hard lots of off the shelf parts, but they cost Porsche prices - Medium
Engine Prep ... Costly, but possible - Hard due to $$$$
Weight reduction ... Doable, but takes alot of effort - Hard due to attention to detail required

Overall effort to 100%? - Hard

ITA 944 at 2800lbs
Suspension/brake prep... same as ITS - Medium
Engine prep ... Same as ITS - Hard
Weight reduction ... - EASY can even add ballast.
Overall effort to 100% - Medium hard

[Fastfred92]

If the argument for listing something fat in A is that it "can&#39;t make the S formula weight," then move it. If the argument is "it&#39;s hard to build a car that makes weight in S" or "it&#39;s expensive to...", then it needs to stay in S. Which does it seem to be for the 944?

[/b]


Kirk, It is NOT a S car period. The "process" has it at a weight for S ( hypothetically the process can have any car be a S car at low enough weight ) but without illegal mods the car can&#39;t make its weight for S, 100% build or otherwise. That is the ONLY issue here. The ITA Integra could be a ITS car if it could loose several hundred pounds, for that matter your Golf would do just fine in S at say 1200-1300 lbs but I dare say 1200 lbs would require some weight reduction outside the scope of IT rules. I don&#39;t see any real problem here and I don&#39;t think this is a twist of the rules or process, just simple math.

[Joe Harlan]

Sad, thats all I can say. There are a bunch of nice 2.0 liter cars that just got moved that are gonna take it right in the butt over this deal. Why not move the 4 valve 240sx at the same time it is in about the same position. I am starting to think it was way better when we didn&#39;t promise a car would be competitive. SO is the end goal to just move everything down hill until ITC is popular again? The MR2 and the RX7 going to B next?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sad, thats all I can say. There are a bunch of nice 2.0 liter cars that just got moved that are gonna take it right in the butt over this deal. Why not move the 4 valve 240sx at the same time it is in about the same position. I am starting to think it was way better when we didn&#39;t promise a car would be competitive. SO is the end goal to just move everything down hill until ITC is popular again? The MR2 and the RX7 going to B next? [/b]

So let me ask you a question Joe. If car X looks and smells like an ITS car but when you run it through the &#39;process&#39; it spits out a weight that is unobtainable, what do you do? You have two options:

1. Leave it at that weight and have it flounder into nothingness (spawning a Spec series for another Organization)

2. Push it down a class and adjust it&#39;s process weight so it fits there. It may have to add ballast, but it would still fit.

What would you do and why?

[Joe Harlan]

So let me ask you a question Joe. If car X looks and smells like an ITS car but when you run it through the &#39;process&#39; it spits out a weight that is unobtainable, what do you do? You have two options:

1. Leave it at that weight and have it flounder into nothingness (spawning a Spec series for another Organization)

2. Push it down a class and adjust it&#39;s process weight so it fits there. It may have to add ballast, but it would still fit.

What would you do and why?
[/b]


I would remember that just a few short years ago nothing could or would be done and people still built these cars. I would also remember that when this system was worked out it was promised that adjustments to the class would be limited. Lastly the thing that really troubles me is the process clearly is not putting enough consideration on torque and how that will effect the overall dynamic of the class. Weight while a will not balance these cars in enough places that it will be effective by itself. The only reason the S13 works in ITA is because it breaths air through a straw. I would feel the same way about that car if the later MAF was approved for it. The process not long ago was being used to move some real screwups by past BODs and now it looks like the process will be used to shuffle a whole set of classes south. Sorry Andy it is not often that I disagree with you but this is one time. IT makes no promise of competitiveness and the 944 and the 240sx 4valve are way closer to S cars than A cars. It is not easy to get down to minimum weight on alot of these cars but it can be done. I guess east coast 944s must be heavier than west coast cars cause we have guys still racing them with power windows and passenger seats and doing quite well. I know you don&#39;t want to here the SIR word but that&#39;s the only way that you could even get close to a fair argument for 2.5 liters to be moved to ITA.

[JeffYoung]

Are we entirely sure that the 944 is not competitive in S? Didn&#39;t a Chris Camadella win a bunch of races in the NEDiv not too long ago? Is it that case that it is simply easier to make a 944S competitive now, so that is what people do?

I&#39;m not sure (and no offense to anyone who runs one) that there are any 100% 944 builds out there running right now in S. I think most guys have moved to the 944S, and the Van Steenburg car sure looks way fast to me.

Edit --yes, I understand the issue is a bit different. Can the 944 get to its process weight? I guess my point is that even if it can&#39;t, if it is competitive anyway, should it be moved? I also worry about what this car might do in A.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Joe, you didn&#39;t answer my question. What would you do?

BTW: The process does take into account torque. What example are you citing where the ITAC/CRB underestimated torque in that it ruined a class?

I agree that the 944 is WAY closer to an S car than an A car. But I refer you to my original question. Please answer. It would seem like you woul dgo with option #1.

[dickita15]

Can the 944 get to its process weight? I guess my point is that even if it can&#39;t, if it is competitive anyway, should it be moved? [/b]

Jeff, that statement worries me. It sound like you are saying that even if the car cannot meet the process it’s on track performance should be the determining factor in classification. Maybe Joe is right in that the process does not take torque into consideration enough bit that is not a reason to disregard the process only refine it.

Trust the process. refine the process if we must, but trust the process.

[Joe Harlan]

Hey Joe, you didn&#39;t answer my question. What would you do?

BTW: The process does take into account torque. What example are you citing where the ITAC/CRB underestimated torque in that it ruined a class?

I agree that the 944 is WAY closer to an S car than an A car. But I refer you to my original question. Please answer. It would seem like you woul dgo with option #1.
[/b]


Sorry I thought I did. Answer is I would leave them in S because with an honest look they actually are S cars not A cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff,
The last Regional Championship in the NARRC for a 944 was 2001 by Russ Jones IIRC.

Take a close look at Kip&#39;s results in the 944S, while he wins a lot (because he is one of the best RACERS I have seen) he only set fast race lap in half of the races he won up here. The 944S is a good car but DAMN expensive to build. Chris can attest to that.

[JeffYoung]

Dick, understand the concern. My point is that maybe the process needs to be refined for the 944. Maybe it is better than the sum of its parts, and has proven competitiveness at a higher than process weight. I know competitiveness is something of a red herring, but it has to play some role as a check on the process.

Andy, agree the S is expensive. So is the 944. Maybe that is why we don&#39;t see many in SCCA? Not because of lack of competiveness, but because of build cost?

[Fastfred92]

Porschephobia...... Look it up guys! We all know results have nothing to do with the process but show me ( I have researched the southeast ) where any 944 ( not S or 1989 2.7 ) has been competitive with even the ITA frontrunners ( even at it&#39;s ITS weight ).. The car can&#39;t legally meet it&#39;s process weight in ITS, it is as simple as that. Joe, if you have 944&#39;s ( again not S or 2.7) running up front in ITS out west then something is wrong or your ITS fields are 2 or 3 cars...

[JeffYoung]

Fred:

The last Regional Championship in the NARRC for a 944 was 2001 by Russ Jones IIRC.

Of course, that is before Bimmerworld, etc.

I agree, haven&#39;t seen one run up front since I started racing.

[Fastfred92]

Again results, but Chris Camadella would have ( in theory based on times ) found himself 3rd or so in the 2002 ARRC ( last time a so called heavy hitter 944 showed up ) ITA race at the prior ITS race weight. ITA times have gotten faster BTW... Do I see Greg Amy shaking in his race boots about the 944 in A ???

[Knestis]

Please - can we set the temptation to use results, to argue EITHER side, free?? Ditto any conversation about cost or theoretical levels of preparation.

What Dick said.

Run the numbers.

Classify the car.

Stop.

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk I understand and I let competitiveness creep into my thinking as well, and it shouldn&#39;t be there.

But there is one thing nagging at the back of my mind. We classify cars based on a process but that process does have subjective adders/subtractions in it. If the process, including those factors, results in a car that CAN compete in S at a weight higher than process, what do you do?

Do you drop it to A knowing that the process weight there is probably too light?

Do you keep it in S knowing that the process weight is not acheivable but a 100% build is still competitive?

Again, I agree with teh blind eye towards subjective competiveness evaluations BUT we can&#39;t ignore the fact that there is subjectiveness in the process weights.

[lateapex911]

OK, first, I do NOT want to get into a race results discussion...but, since we&#39;re there now...and I ONLY bring this up to show that cases can be made either way when you debate results....

Camedella WAS at the ARRCs this year, and his effort IS first class.

(I won&#39;t reveal what he spent with Milledge on the motor and the Motec, as it&#39;s not public info, nor should cost be a determining factor in classing discussions, but trust me when I tell you he has spent lots of thousands finding every last legal HP that poorly cammed motor can give)

He checks in here from time to time, and I hope he can give specifics..

But...his ARRC effort was thorough, fresh tires, data aq, top drawer power, top flight chassis and suspension, and as low as you can get weightwise.

And he could have done well in the ITA race. Not first mind you, if lap times are to be the deciding factor, but right up there. Escept he is in ITS.

Now some will say that the car can wn easily on tracks that aren&#39;t the power track RA is, and that citing that one track is misleading.....and moving it to A will create an instant overdog. But remember, if it goes to A, it goes at a process weight. And that&#39;s not going to be lighter! So braking, handling and acceleration will degrade somewhat. Now, if it CAN hit weight in ITS, then maybe the situation is that it just isn&#39;t a long course car. But we need to nail the numbers before we make any moves.

(Also, note that Kip VanSteenberg, chose to run a Miata in ITS...instead of his 944. I doubt he did that so that he&#39;d have more of a challenge to win it.)

OK, that said, possibly moving the car to A isn&#39;t, in my opinion, a shifting of the classes. The class performace windows were largely set long ago, in the nineties, when cars like the CRX and then the Integra and the 240 SX were put in ITA. Their development raised the bar in A, and marginalized a lot of cars. The recent weight adjustments are based on new performance envelopes developed for the classes. They were designed to try and affect the least number of cars as possible. (As oppposed to a clean sheet of paper) So, cars lost or gained weight. In some cases, they can&#39;t hit the weght they need to. If thats the case, then reclassification is a consideration.


But....the ITAC must be positive of the real numbers, and they must move carefully. If it can&#39;t make weight, it can be moved and made to fit the process in the lower class. The name of the car is irrelevenat, it&#39;s all about the math and the process.

[Fastfred92]

Do you keep it in S knowing that the process weight is not acheivable but a 100% build is still competitive?

[/b]


False.............. see Jakes comments

[dj10]

OK, first, I do NOT want to get into a race results discussion...but, since we&#39;re there now...and I ONLY bring this up to show that cases can be made either way when you debate results....

Camedella WAS at the ARRCs this year, and his effort IS first class.
[/b]

Jake, I&#39;d like to hear for Chris. I&#39;m wondering how much time he has a RA since know a track has a lot to do with how fast you go. I don&#39;t dispute that the 944 is a underdog in ITS, I do know Chris drives the car well at WGI. I&#39;d like to know how much more time he might of been able to pickup @ RA. There is that possibility that he was going as fast as his 944 would let him too.

[Fastfred92]

I am not 100% sure but isn&#39;t Chris in a 944S now ( not a 2.5 8v 944)??

The entry from 2006 ARRC shows 944S, entry from 2002 shows 944........

[Greg Amy]

Do I see Greg Amy shaking in his race boots about the 944 in A ???[/b]

Nah.

Not that I&#39;d like to see it moved to A, mind you, but I have confidence in the process. If it&#39;s run the same as all others, I trsut the process... - GA

[Bill Miller]

As true as your corollary might be, there should be NO consideration of cost when classifying/specifying IT cars.

It sounds like a 2800+/- pound 944 fits in A. If it got moved, the next question would be, "How many people are interested in building one?"
[/b]

Actually, per the GCR, it should (low-cost cars and all that). :D :dead_horse:

And while it may not be exactly the same situation, look at the New Beetle in ITC. Has anyone seen one of these things yet? Granted, a Porsche 944 donor probably costs a ton less, and is almost certainly considered closer to a &#39;real race car&#39; than a New Beetle, but you get my point.

Kirk,

To your earlier comment re: dual-classification, we&#39;ve already got it. In some cases it&#39;s codified in the ITCS (the ex-ITS cars now in ITR), and in other cases it&#39;s codified at the Regional (or Divisional) level (e.g. IT7). The first-gen RX7 folks were just lucky enough to have the &#39;critical mass&#39; to pull it off. At this point in time, I&#39;m inclined to agree w/ Dick. Dual-classify the cars that are close, and let the market decide where they want to race. You mentioned running your car in ITC at a higher weight. You&#39;ve already got essentially that, w/ a different skin, in the form of the New Beetle.

When the whole NB classification issue came up, I asked where the G/J IV 2.0 cars were going to end up. As of now, they haven&#39;t been classified in IT (not sure why, the earlier versions are eligible). At the time, I ran the numbers on curb weights, and IIRC, the J IV actually weighed more than a NB.

I think dual-classification is a win-win situation, all the way around. It gives people the option of where they want to run their car, it has the potential to create more entries for the Regions (run the car in both classes at the same race, provided that those classes are in different run groups, thereby adding another entry fee), and it mitigates issues like the 944 and lets the ITAC focus on more strategic issues for the category.

As far as using on-track performance as inputs, I pretty much agree w/ you. But, as you know, when building a model (or process, or formula, or whatever we&#39;re going to call it), you need something to validate your assumptions. The adjustment of the FWD adders is a perfect example. Process said one thing, but looking at overall results made Andy et. al. say "maybe these things aren&#39;t the same for all cars". Which IMHO, is a good thing. I advocated an evolving model all along.

And while I know you don&#39;t like the idea of comp. adjustments, you can&#39;t argue w/ the fact that setting the granularity level at make/model will produce the best &#39;curve fit&#39; of the model (process, not car). If you&#39;re truly trying to equate the cars, that&#39;s where you have to go. That being said, I have no problem w/ the ITAC drawing the line and saying that they&#39;re not going to slice it that fine. As long as it&#39;s stated up front, I&#39;m cool w/ that. We&#39;ve gotten SOOOO much better than where we were just a few short years ago, I think letting the dust settle a bit is a good thing. Kind of like two people that start dating, things go really well for a few months, and the next thing you know, they&#39;re moving in together. More often than not, they&#39;re breaking up after a year. Why? Because they were all caught up in how great their new relationship was, and didn&#39;t see how it all played out (you know, that &#39;cap-off-the toothpaste&#39; and &#39;leaving the seat up&#39; kind of stuff).


Anyway, I&#39;m up early because I have to start cooking, not typing here. Merry Christmas everyone.

[ChrisCamadella]

OK, I have to run out to ref a hockey game, but when I have time I&#39;ll write a longer reply.

1. I am currently running a 944S (16V), not the 944NA 8v.

2. I really think that the 944NA belongs in ITA, at the appropriate weight.

3. I really think my shortcomings at RA were about 95% driver and about 5% car. There were places on the track where I CLEARLY was not getting it right. Too bad they don&#39;t run the ARRC at Watkins Glen :-)

4. I have data from every lap I ever ran, at every track (which is a lot of them) in the 944NA 8V car (as well as the 16V car, of course). That chassis was faster than the 16V car, because of the lighter weight and the better shocks, at least until they outlawed them. I know you&#39;re not supposed to compare lap times, but I think they would be interesting information.

5. I&#39;m SURE there are lots of people with 944NA&#39;s that want to race competitively. If that car were in ITA at the right weight, people would run them. It cost a LOT to build the 944S motor, and only about half of a lot to build the 944NA motor. There are a LOT more 944NA cars around - there were only a few thousand 944S cars imported into the US, and those only for 2 years. So I think we should give them (the 8V crowd) a place to race with a chance to do well.

More later...

[Fastfred92]

Chris,

Thanks for the insight! My New Years resolution is to play more hockey to try and get my fat ass in better shape.....

Was your 2002 ARRC car a 944NA?? And do you think a 944NA ( 83-88 ) could reach the current minimum process weight ( legally ) with a 180 lb driver? That is the real question.... I had a 86 a few years back and I know even with a 180lbs driver ( I am not ) it could never get down to the new ITS minimum. I admit I do not know how much different the early cars are but I just don&#39;t see getting one down to the 2375 range period..

[JeffYoung]

Fred, agreed, that is the question......let&#39;s see what Chris says post-hockey......

[latebrake]

Can you dip an IT car? not acid dip just get all the non metal street stuff off the shell. put the IT parts back on the car for lower starting weight. stuff like that.

Lawrence

[Fastfred92]

Can you dip an IT car? not acid dip just get all the non metal street stuff off the shell. put the IT parts back on the car for lower starting weight. stuff like that.

Lawrence
[/b]


Yes, as long as it does not remove any metal...... I still have a hard time thinking you can get to 2375 or so and the ITAC should not be classing cars that require dipping to get to minimum weight

[JeffYoung]

So long as you are simply removing paint, undercoating, etc. -- things you can remove per the rules -- I think you are ok. It&#39;s been done -- Billy Jones in our region dipped his 240 to get all the crap off it (SX that is) and lost quite a bit of weight I understand.

[dickita15]

I am pretty sure it is legal, I just finished doing one the old fashioned way. Grinding wheels, wire brushes sanding disks and scrapers. Even on a rotisserie it took many more hours than I expected.

[Joe Harlan]

All the information I find online indicates these cars are 2675 factory weight. Getting 250lbs out of that should not be an issue. I struggle to believe that these are can&#39;t be gotten down to weight if the cars are fully developed and stripping the car would be considered part of full development.

[Team SSR]

It&#39;s not an issue - if you have a 60lb. driver it leaves 90 lbs. to get the corner weights pretty close.

:)

[Joe Harlan]

It&#39;s not an issue - if you have a 60lb. driver it leaves 90 lbs. to get the corner weights pretty close.

:)
[/b]

So are you saying that the 2675 is the correct factory weight?

I am not so sure it is the job of the ITAC to worry about people being able to get corner weights nailed to a pin. I am thinking with the gearbox location on these cars, scaling and balancing is not an issue.

Curb weight in a 97 240sx base model is 2800lbs ITS weight is 2650.
Curb weight 944 2675 ITS weight 2575 .944=Better brakes more stock HP better weight distribution. I am thinking the formula is not being applied evenly between these two cars.

[Fastfred92]

All the information I find online indicates these cars are 2675 factory weight. Getting 250lbs out of that should not be an issue. I struggle to believe that these are can&#39;t be gotten down to weight if the cars are fully developed and stripping the car would be considered part of full development.
[/b]


Joe? I am holding my owners manual from a 1986 944 and it list weight at 2778, the factory workshop manual i have has specific weights for 1985 ( not sure if this is early or late 85) and it list weight at 1255 kg or about the same weight... Unlike my BMW&#39;s and VW&#39;s and other race cars i have prepped this car has little "excess" weight. The front seats are about the same as most cars but the rears weigh next to nothing and there is no trim in the rear hatch area to speak of other than a 8lbs piece of carpet. The door panels and lower dash panels may account for 30 lbs maybe... If dipping a car is part of "fully developed" then the process needs rework. I rarely see a car that has been dipped and i dont see too many cars that can&#39;t make minmum weight without dipping....

The rain out in the northwest must make the weed even more powerful :)

[Joe Harlan]

Joe? I am holding my owners manual from a 1986 944 and it list weight at 2778, the factory workshop manual i have has specific weights for 1985 ( not sure if this is early or late 85) and it list weight at 1255 kg or about the same weight... Unlike my BMW&#39;s and VW&#39;s and other race cars i have prepped this car has little "excess" weight. The front seats are about the same as most cars but the rears weigh next to nothing and there is no trim in the rear hatch area to speak of other than a 8lbs piece of carpet. The door panels and lower dash panels may account for 30 lbs maybe... If dipping a car is part of "fully developed" then the process needs rework. I rarely see a car that has been dipped and i dont see too many cars that can&#39;t make minmum weight without dipping....

The rain out in the northwest must make the weed even more powerful :)
[/b]

Yeah well I don&#39;t smoke weed and I don&#39;t drink so that is not any part of this issue. I have sourced the 2675 number in several places and I asked to posts up if that was the right number. You could have presented your number without being rude about it. I am convinced that if the 944 is an ITA then several other cars better be treated the same way. You did not answer my question about the 97 240sx that is basicly the same specs with worse brakes and poor weight distribution. I see the 944 has the potential to be the E36 of ITA once somebosy decides to take one to the maximum extend and drive it at the same level.

MY money says less the E36 the 944 and the 240 pro-prepped and well driven can be at the pointy end of the pack in ITS. If it is the desire of the ITAC to make ITA the old ITS then they should just say that.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Joe,

Put the cows back in the barn. The 944 is simply being looked at for it&#39;s viability to make the minimum weight. If it can&#39;t, then it doesn&#39;t fit in ITS so it would be considered for ITA.

The 240SX has NOTHING to do with the 944. If the 240SX makes weight in ITS, its a non-starter. The top-3 car in the Southeast posted in the classifieds made weight - so guess what? These cars are IN NO WAY tied to each other - or ANY OTHER car for that matter. This is a simple issue of a single cars capacity to make weight. The 944&#39;s weight will have to be around 2850-2900 to meet process in ITA...

This COULD be a productive debate on what to do with tweeners...

[JeffYoung]

One thing that might be productive to discuss in the tweener debate is the relevance of stock curb weight. I used to think it important, until I tried to find numbers for pretty common cars (325s). It is hard -- you see all kinds of different numbers, from the manufacturer&#39;s sales lit, from Edmund&#39;s, from shop manuals, etc. It can vary from year to year -- wildly -- for the same car. Options can affect it greatly.

Having said that, whether the curb weight is 2675 or 2770, getting 200 lbs out of an IT should not be that hard. Seats alone (four of them) ought to be at least 1/4 of that. Cat and exhaust, another 20-30 lbs. A/C stuff, etc. But this is all guessing. Is there anyone who has built a 10/10 944 who can tell us about weight? Chris? What did your car weigh?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess where I wanted to go (and maybe move it to it&#39;s own thread) is that Joe is against moving tweener cars down. The 944, the Gen 1 MR2 are tweeners and he suggests better searving the membership in the &#39;higher&#39; class.

In an effort to use the process faithfully, my thoughts go immediately to running cars through the process in the lower class if they can&#39;t legally get down to the minimum weight in the higher class. IN THEORY, at the higher weight/lower class, the car should be inside the same performance envelope as the cars it joins.

Now we KNOW that the process is not perfect. It had/has flaws we must live with. We also have PCA&#39;s that can correct mistakes that upset the competitive balance in a class.

So do you move tweeners down at the benefit of some and at the risk of many - all in the name of the name of the process? Or are we trying too hard only to end up hurting the very thing we have brought so far in so little time.........

[JeffYoung]

You can&#39;t get rid of tweeners. There will always be cars that fall just on the border of two classes. I frankly think that for the cars that are very, very close, there&#39;s not much to do and any attempt to force them up or down a class will probably cause more problems than it solves.

[shwah]

Andy,

On this topic I am in 100% agreement with you. If a car can&#39;t make weight it makes sense to run it at process weight in the lower class - AND - leave allowance for a one time weight correction if a mistake has been made. The point that needs to be nailed down, is how exactly do we determine that a car cannot make weight? I beleive from this thread that the 944 is harder than others to get to weight, but don&#39;t know that I have seen that it cannot be done. This will have to be standardized to some degree to enable such a policy to be applied equally to any car thought to be eligible for a move, or to confirm that it is in fact not eligible to be moved.

I don&#39;t see how allowing more cars to be competitive, without resorting to competition adjustments, is bad for IT. The more cars that are available to race competitively, the more variety we will get to race with on the track. Sounds like fun to me.

I do trust the process, and do appreciate all the work that has gone in to making the positive changes in IT classing in recent years.

[Joe Harlan]

Andy, please do not put words inmy mouth my friend. I am not against moving tweener cars down sideways or kicking them out completely if they don&#39;t fit. What I am against is the idea that weight will be the big equalizer when car are hugely different from each other. 2.5 liters is what I oppose in a class full of 1600 to 2000 CC cars.

Run the formula on the 240sx and the 944 here in public and lets see how it shapes up.

I have said several time that I believe the 240 will make weight, It will be hard but it will get there. I am convinced that the 944 can do the same thing. IT WILL BE HARD but it can get there. I am not asking that the 240 be moved down. I am asking that the ITAC wait and see the full effects of the SIR and ITR before screwing up the envelope on ITA. (the most subcribed IT class in the country as far as I can see) Making to many changes at one time and using the PCA as a comp adjustment is what I oppose. I trust the process if it is applied the same but I don&#39;t see that to be the case.

[Knestis]

As much as I hate to admit it, I&#39;m beginning to see more merit in the idea (Dick&#39;s?) that we just do the math, dual-list the tweeners, and "let the market sort it out."

However, this prevailing opinion...


...leave allowance for a one time weight correction if a mistake has been made. [/b]
...still gives me the willies, since it moves from the presumption that we won&#39;t know if a "mistake" has been made untils someone races them. As if competition adjustments (bleah) made on short-term results are OK, when those made as a standard course of practice (a la Production) are not.

Over at rr-ax.com, Scott Giles suggested that it might just be that some tweeners can NEVER be listed where they fit. The real issue, as I understand it, is that folks believe that nobody will ever actually build and race a 2800# 944. That&#39;s not an issue for the process to even care about.

We either trust the process or we don&#39;t. If there&#39;s ANY practical question of whether this car can get to the required weight to fit the S parameters, spec it out in A and off we go.

I&#39;ve submitted a request to get anothet such car (the &#39;92-95 Civic DX) reviewed for a move from A - where it&#39;s listed at a nutso-low weight - to B. The argument (of Giles and others) seems to be that "it&#39;s not worth doing" if it&#39;s going to have to weigh 2400 to fit in the new class.

Andy&#39;s got it right - the question should be, "Where is it likely to do the club racing program more good.?"

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, please do not put words inmy mouth my friend. I am not against moving tweener cars down sideways or kicking them out completely if they don&#39;t fit. What I am against is the idea that weight will be the big equalizer when car are hugely different from each other. 2.5 liters is what I oppose in a class full of 1600 to 2000 CC cars. [/b]

Joe, I asked you a very specific question and you replied in post #103 that you would leave the car that didn&#39;t fit the process in the higher class.


Run the formula on the 240sx and the 944 here in public and lets see how it shapes up.[/b]

If car X and car Y have the exact same specs - except one can make weight and one can&#39;t, I think they should be in different classes. If the 240SX can make it&#39;s ITS weight, it again, has NOTHING to do with this discussion.


I have said several time that I believe the 240 will make weight, It will be hard but it will get there. I am convinced that the 944 can do the same thing. IT WILL BE HARD but it can get there. I am not asking that the 240 be moved down. I am asking that the ITAC wait and see the full effects of the SIR and ITR before screwing up the envelope on ITA. (the most subcribed IT class in the country as far as I can see) Making to many changes at one time and using the PCA as a comp adjustment is what I oppose. I trust the process if it is applied the same but I don&#39;t see that to be the case. [/b]

I fail to see how the SIR on the E36 and the new ITR class have anything to do with this philisophical debate. I respect you a ton Joe, but your local results are based on such a small sample size (like 3 ITS cars and 3 ITA cars and nothing else to speak of in IT) that I think it creates a fear of the 944.

Having looked hard at the process for the 944 in ITA, it really would need to be 2850-2900lbs. I don&#39;t think anyone likes it at that weight...I bet most would rather try and get as close to 2575 as they could and stay in ITS...and THAT is the core issue with a TWEENER.

[Fastfred92]

Andy&#39;s got it right - the question should be, "Where is it likely to do the club racing program more good.?"

K
[/b]


Kirk has it right ( Andy too ) the hard cold process also has to have reason and benifit the club but I also see that the car itself should play some role. ( blast away, I am treading shark infested waters here )
Here is what i mean, the 944, as a tweener, is more important to our club than say some obscure Peugeot tweener ( I am sure I have offended somebody ) to get it right. There are aspects of a 944 ( most P cars )that make them difficult to fit in IT racing but they are very popular cars with loyal followers who race and spend there hard earned or inherited cash in our sport. The 944 is a sports car in every sense of the word and belongs in the SPORTS CAR club of America. It is as simple as without illegal mods the 944 can&#39;t make minimum weight in ITS but could make a process weight in ITA without upsetting the harmony of the class.

Joe, I was not trying to be rude, sorry..

[latebrake]

Ok i know this wont be done but you could allow the 944 to make weight. Lexan hatch or or other light parts for the car. problem is the glass is high on the car and that makes for a better handeling car than ITS in stock skin should.(production) the up side to something like this is the 944 cup cars with NASA have these holes to make the weight and they may come over and race in ITS as well without having to change parts.

if the 44 is moved to A and ends up with the SIR they will just go race where they came from and save the cash.
it should be a lot easer to build a 28/29 c# 944 than a light S car so less money is required to put a car on track. This may attract some 944&#39;s and there are a lot of them around cheap.
I dont think we should fear the 40K 944 ITA car any more than others but if it shows up you will just have to race with it just like a 40K 240Z. The cubic dollar is always fast in all classes.
i know i would think hard about the A car but sure as hell wont spend 40K or half that to be first in something i consider fun. it you dont get paid to do it its just for fun anyway.

start with the 83/84 cars with manual steering and making weight is not as hard.

Lawrence

[lateapex911]

With a clean sheet of paper, if there is a choice between fitting a car in two classes, I prefer to go for the lower class, if it appears that the cars ability to make weight will be difficult.

When people try to get cars to aggressive minimums, they have to spend extra money ($1800 9 pound CF seat instead of a $700 FG version, etc), they will look at the cage and remove bars they feel are surplus, and they will have to go spend money on hardware in lightweight forms over more readily available common forms (steel).

The net net is that the car might get close, but the expense is way up, and the safety might be compromised.

(Yea, I know, can&#39;t play the safety card, the GCR describes the cage we need, so all else is gravy)

But, if the car is put in a lower class, none of those issues arise.

However, a heavier car can be rougher on it&#39;s gear. Tires, brakes, etc are used up faster. In some cases it makes little sense to pile on pounds and make it slow, in other cases, it does. (The Honda Prelude is a good example of a car that really didn&#39;t want to be in ITS as the weight it needed to be there was just too great and caused all sorts of issues...most feel it&#39;s a better fit in ITR)

So, we have to look at that as well...where does the car "fit" best?

Also, it&#39;s very hard to move a car across the border between B and A...thankfully thats not the case here.

With the 944, we have good knowledge...lots of guys have built 944s, and the power is documentable, so the weights it needs to be in either class are pretty much nailed.

So the question boils down to: The process says it can race in A at 2850 or so, or S at 2575.
-Will it destroy itself at 2850?
-Can it get reasonably close to 2575?

Questions I DON"T see as relevent:
-"Will it damage ITA?" No, not if the process is followed.
-"What about the XXX?? If you move the 944, you have to move the XXX". No, the XXX is a seperate case, just like the 944. Make a case for XXX and we&#39;ll look at it on it&#39;s merits.
-"You&#39;re making ITA into ITS". Disagree...if the performance envelope remains the same, the class is the same. The process will ensure the performance envelope remains the same.

In the end, the club exists to give people a fair place to race, and needs to create scenarois where people WANT to race. It&#39;s no good to move cars around if people don&#39;t want to race where they land. If that were the case across the board, nobody would race. This is a case where the process might say the car could race in either class. Which will bring more cars?

Maybe the answer is to class it in both, and let the market decide.

This brings up the Dual classification issue, and questions will arise like, "IF you DC XXX, then you have to DC VVV and ZZZ and WWW and.....". As it stands now DC is being applied very sparingly and only to cars that have been moved up a class. (ITS to ITR) Maybe it&#39;s time to look at DC and create a set of parameters that define a DC process, so that DC can be applied consistently in the future.

[Knestis]

The first step on the DC question Jake, is defining the policy - dare I say, the INTENT - before getting mired in the details of process. If it can&#39;t be defined clearly and in ways that can be communicated, the rationale for even having the DC option, then there is no sound foundation from which the process derives. Step two (defining the process) shouldn&#39;t happen because it will just be co-opted for other policy ends, create even more unintended consequences, etc.


...the 944, as a tweener, is more important to our club than say some obscure Peugeot tweener...[/b]

You get no argument from me on that point, Fred but Marcel is pissed. He was going to get the 504 listed in C and kick some butt at the Course Américaine de Route des Champions next fall in Atlanta.

K

[JeffYoung]

Dammit, I was gonna build me a Pig-out.

This is a healthy debate. I think we have the questions nailed down:

1. The question for tweeners is which weight can the car make, the lower weight in the higher class or the higher weight in the lower class.

2. The policy question is, in which class would the car be better off (assuming of course that it would be at its process weight in both classes)?

What drives the policy question seems to be two fold: (a) what is best for the class; and (B) what iteration of the vehicle would attract more drivers? Subpoint (a) seems suspect as someone mentioned above -- if the car weight is correctly set by the process, then "best for the class" is really irrelevant. So, (B) is the most salient point.

On that, a 944 at "process weight" in ITA is 2850??? That seems like it might scare off the 944 Cup guys in NASA even more than the prospect of racing against BMWs, Mazdas and (my God!) V8 Triumphs.

We are all kind of dancing on the head of a pin here. Maybe someone (me?) should post on the RennLIst or PCA boards and see what the 944 Cup guys think? Both about the ability of the car to get to 2575 and the practicality of racing the car at 2850 lbs.

How much torque does this thing make by the way anyway? 2.5 liters is a lot of displacement. Quite a bit more than most anything else in the class except for the turd AMC and GM motors. Is that accounted for in the process?

[Team SSR]

140+ ft. lbs.

[924Guy]

How much torque does this thing make by the way anyway? 2.5 liters is a lot of displacement. Quite a bit more than most anything else in the class except for the turd AMC and GM motors. Is that accounted for in the process?
[/b]
You mean like those monster 2.3L ITB Fords? Isn&#39;t the 240SX a 2.4L car, anyway??? And then there&#39;s the substantial drivetrain loss (at least, seems like the FWD cars lose less - correct?)...

I know I could readily (and legally) race my 924 at 2575 (only 25# than its currentl limit)... not sure just how much more the 944 should really weigh... FWIW, I have had my street, completely stock 924 Turbo on the scales, it&#39;s just shy of 2800# with everything in it, 1/2 tank gas, etc - listed curb weight on that puppy is 2779 per the owner&#39;s manual.

Listed curb weight on the 924 (2.0L) is 2623 (per factory manual).

Listed curb weight on the 944 (2.5L) is 2779 lbs (per factory manual).

2.5L engine weight dry is 366lbs. 2.0L NA engine weight dry is 313lbs. 2.0L Turbo engine weight is 364lbs.

Based on the above, plus the fact that my car (readily a 9/10ths build - not dipped, but most undercoating removed) is right at spec weight with no ballast (I run a 40# brick of lead to make sure) and that I only weigh 155# - I have a hard time believing it&#39;d be possible to get a 944 much below 2700# even.

[lateapex911]

So Vaughan, if I am reading you correctly, you&#39;re saying that the 924 would weigh about 2630 or so with a 180 pound driver?

And the math looks like this:
2623 stock curb, plus cage, (80lbs?) plus driver (180 lbs), = 2883, less "stuff" = 2630.

And the "Stuff" then has to be about 253 pounds.

So, if we take your numbers and solve for the 944, it would work out like: 2779 +80 +180 =3039 Then subtracting the same "stuff": 3039 - 253 = 2786.

Did I follow you correctly? You think the car needs to have an additional 100+ pounds of removable stuff to make minimum?

Which would mean the entire amount of additional weight on the 944 vs 924, except the engine, would have to be removable to be close to minimum.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I asked you a very specific question and you replied in post #103 that you would leave the car that didn&#39;t fit the process in the higher class.
If car X and car Y have the exact same specs - except one can make weight and one can&#39;t, I think they should be in different classes. If the 240SX can make it&#39;s ITS weight, it again, has NOTHING to do with this discussion.



I fail to see how the SIR on the E36 and the new ITR class have anything to do with this philisophical debate. I respect you a ton Joe, but your local results are based on such a small sample size (like 3 ITS cars and 3 ITA cars and nothing else to speak of in IT) that I think it creates a fear of the 944.

Having looked hard at the process for the 944 in ITA, it really would need to be 2850-2900lbs. I don&#39;t think anyone likes it at that weight...I bet most would rather try and get as close to 2575 as they could and stay in ITS...and THAT is the core issue with a TWEENER.
[/b]


Andy don&#39;t be silly. I am not just looking at my small sample in local SCCA, I also have actual Dyno data in hand on several of these cars to back up what I say. The real issue is if you apply the formula the same way to all cars then the 2.5 liter car comes out as an S car. I think you guys are applying actual dyno numbers from one source and that&#39;s how the issue gets sideways. Please post the actual numbers used for the 240z,e30,e36,944,rx7, and 240sx....I would really like to see the actual process in play...

[Bill Miller]

...still gives me the willies, since it moves from the presumption that we won&#39;t know if a "mistake" has been made untils someone races them. [/b]

Kirk,

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I don&#39;t want to see on-track performance used to influence PCA&#39;s any more than you do. But, you have to validate models w/ actual data. To throw something out there, and never look at how could the data &#39;fit the curve&#39;, doesn&#39;t make sense.

And I don&#39;t know what the big resistence to DC is, especially for the tweener cars. You guys are talking about <300# difference between ITS and ITA for the 944 in question. Look at the lower classes, and I think you&#39;ll see an even narrower margin. Use the process, trust the process, DC the cars, and let the normal PCA model play out.

[JeffYoung]

Maybe dual classification is the way to go, on a limited basis. Where I think it gets unworkable is if we have 300 cars all classed in more than one place. Simple things then become difficult like tring to figure out if the car in front of me is an S car that I am racing for position or an A car that I am not. I also think there would be significant resistance from corner workers and tech folks.

But I digress.

Vaughan, that is valuable data. Do you know if the 944 curb weight changed over time? I&#39;ve heard (rumors only, no real data) that the early cars weighed less and might make 2575. Thanks again for posting this.I agree there are some potential other torque monsters in A, Fiero, Monza, AMC, etc. But the class leaders are all 2.0 liters or less. Hell, maybe throwing a big heavy torque monster that CAN compete in there might be fun (if the process works! if the process works!).

Vaughan were do the NASA 944 racers hang out on the web? I&#39;d like to ask them some questions about where they would prefer to run the cars (weight wise). I still think that the 944 at 2850 is not going to bring those guys over because the weight will be a problem for them.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy don&#39;t be silly. I am not just looking at my small sample in local SCCA, I also have actual Dyno data in hand on several of these cars to back up what I say. The real issue is if you apply the formula the same way to all cars then the 2.5 liter car comes out as an S car. I think you guys are applying actual dyno numbers from one source and that&#39;s how the issue gets sideways. Please post the actual numbers used for the 240z,e30,e36,944,rx7, and 240sx....I would really like to see the actual process in play... [/b]

Joe,

You know exactly how the process works an what I am saying has NOTHING to do with power. The issue at hand is that the 240SX can make weight in ITS and the 944 potentially does not. If it can, it should sty in S, if it can&#39;t, it needs consideration for A.

Now, the process for the 944 does take into account KNOWN crank numbers (which is what the process uses). It equals about a 20% increase over stock power. Some cars like the RX-7 and the E36 in your question use 30% because we know those motors make more. The 240SX we use the standard 25%. We use info we know (when we know it) so overdogs don&#39;t appear. If Rotories used the standard 25%, all hell would break loose, etc.

I love you to death Joe, but we are not talking about the same thing here. I don&#39;t care one bit about the 240SX in ITS - becasue it can make weight. It&#39;s an issue of being able to fit into a class. And that is with this debate is about re: the 944.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

You know exactly how the process works an what I am saying has NOTHING to do with power. The issue at hand is that the 240SX can make weight in ITS and the 944 potentially does not. If it can, it should sty in S, if it can&#39;t, it needs consideration for A.

Now, the process for the 944 does take into account KNOWN crank numbers (which is what the process uses). It equals about a 20% increase over stock power. Some cars like the RX-7 and the E36 in your question use 30% because we know those motors make more. The 240SX we use the standard 25%. We use info we know (when we know it) so overdogs don&#39;t appear. If Rotories used the standard 25%, all hell would break loose, etc.

I love you to death Joe, but we are not talking about the same thing here. I don&#39;t care one bit about the 240SX in ITS - becasue it can make weight. It&#39;s an issue of being able to fit into a class. And that is with this debate is about re: the 944.
[/b]
Andy, You keep saying it can make weight but you have offered no proof that the 240 can legally make weight and I have seen no proof that the 944 can&#39;t. You also made my point that the process uses an average percentage gain to classify and you are now using a single data point dyno number on the 944. The process is not being used equally then.

The 240SX may be able to make weight but it does so at a cost. 4 lug hubs and small rotors 4 lug wheels ect. You have to give up advantages the car has to get it down to weight. I think the 944 may have similar options that are not being taken advantage of. Building a front runner as you know is not cheap or easy.

Now as far as adding extra weight to the 944 to fit it into ITA. If the cars are not getting down to weight then I would venture to say that the 300lb add every body is talking is really only about 150lbs, We all know how well weight worked to slow the BMW down in the past. Weight alone is not an effective tool and the first person to fully get after a 944 with prep. and driving skill will have an overdog out of the box.

PS. I do trust the process because I had a hand in developing the original. I am just concerned you all are trying to use to fine a comb though this deal. One misataken overdog will do more harm to a class than anything else.

[924Guy]

Yes, Jake, that&#39;s exactly what I&#39;m saying.

Jeff - yes, I&#39;ve seen the rumoured data about the early years of 944 (83-84, maybe 85) being closer to the 924 weight. I don&#39;t believe it, as I saw it on the 924/944/968 online FAQ; the numbers I gave above are directly for the factory manual, and if anything, they are usually only correct for the first few years, updates to later cars come as supplements. I&#39;d also very much expect the early 944 to weigh the same as my &#39;82 924 Turbo since practically the only difference is the engine, and they do apparently weight the same with the turbo and all that extra plumbing added. The body construction is very much identical to the late turbos like mine, so the same gains for building, etc.

The bulk of the 944 racers are over at NASA; they&#39;re split 3 ways somewhat geographically in 3 different classes. There&#39;s the 944Cup guys on the east coast, who actually run a mix of IT-prepared and PCA-prepared cars; the GTS Challenge guys (mostly midwest) who run a mix of IT, PCA, and GTS-prepped cars, and the 944 Spec (started on the Left Coast, but spreading eastward) with their own rules. The latter is the biggest, most coherent group, but they prefer to run fairly stock engines at low weight - IT min weight, but through non-IT-legal means. So they&#39;re not likely to have any interest in crossing over to IT - their cars are already too far gone. You&#39;ve got to go after the PCA, 944Cup, and GTS Challenge guys.

All of those above, except maybe the PCA-only guys, can be reached through the NASA forums. Hate to say it, but I think that, given their druthers, they&#39;d rather be given special (non-standard for IT) ways to remove weight out of the cars to run them in ITS than throw in ballast. Like fiberglass bumpers (which, believe it or not, are legal in PCA Stock classes, as is lexan), etc. Of course, they&#39;ll still be slow because they don&#39;t tend to run the cars that hard, prep them so hard, etc., and still mostly come off unsatisfied. Bottom line, I wouldn&#39;t place too much stock in what they say they want, because what many of them really want is an engraved invitation/special pass to go win ITS with a half-fast car. I say this having been involved for many years in writing the GTS Challenge rulebook to appeal to as many of those guys as possible.

I still think the appeal will be to provide enough of a numbers fit that it looks good on paper - enough to get them into a race and see how much more fun IT is. Once they see, many will decide yeah, this is where I wanna go, and make the switch. And many won&#39;t.

While I think running it as a heavy ITA car makes more sense for IT and being competitive with a 944, I don&#39;t know that it would convince anyone to come over that isn&#39;t already. Maybe just the PCA Stock class guys. So I&#39;m not sure we want to put too much weight, in this discussion, on specifically hunting those guys down. They do already have 3 series targeted directly to them!

Hmm, you know, for 944Cup IT-prepped 924S and 944&#39;s are required to make a min weight of 2800# (2.5L 8V motor)! Their PCA-prepped brethren are required to make 2650 or 2750 by comparison. So maybe that helps provide some weight, no pun intended, behind the idea of adding weight to the car for ITA. Here&#39;s the link:
http://www.44cup.com/info.shtml

Sorry for the long post, kinda rambling a bit here...



Andy, You keep saying it can make weight but you have offered no proof that the 240 can legally make weight and I have seen no proof that the 944 can&#39;t.
[/b]

Sorry, while I respect the counterpoint you&#39;re providing on this discussion Joe, I have to take issue with this statement with respect to logic, mathematically speaking.

You can&#39;t prove a negative.

How would any of us prove, to you, that this is not possible?

Would the only acceptable method be to actually go and build a car, 10/10ths, with your supervision? I think you can recognize that such cannot be done simply for the purposes of this discussion. Can you suggest exactly how else we would go about proving such a negative, strictly for the purposes of this discussion?

[Fastfred92]

Now as far as adding extra weight to the 944 to fit it into ITA. If the cars are not getting down to weight then I would venture to say that the 300lb add every body is talking is really only about 150lbs, We all know how well weight worked to slow the BMW down in the past. Weight alone is not an effective tool and the first person to fully get after a 944 with prep. and driving skill will have an overdog out of the box.

[/b]


Joe I have to call BS again my man, as was posted already ( don&#39;t give me the crap about on track data ) show me a 944 at todays ITS weights ( or as close as can be ) that is a frontrunner in a good ITA field. Hell Chris C would have finished like 3rd at the ARRC in ITA and his car is a well driven 100% build 944S, not standard 944. There is not one shred of ontrack evidence that the 944 at 2800 or 2850 would be a overdog in any respect in ITA. I have my personal doubts that even as close as you could get to the ITS wieght you still would not have a overdog.. 2.5 liter means nothing if it is a maxed out tractor engine with a cam and intake from a mini van and little room for legal improvements....... i bet the 1.8 hondacura guys already put down close as much rwhp down as any 944...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, You keep saying it can make weight but you have offered no proof that the 240 can legally make weight and I have seen no proof that the 944 can&#39;t. You also made my point that the process uses an average percentage gain to classify and you are now using a single data point dyno number on the 944. The process is not being used equally then. [/b]

First off, nobody has submitted a letter to the CRB asking for the 240SX to be moved down becasue it&#39;s minimum weight is unrealistic. That and the fact the best one in the country that was for sale DID make weight, makes me think they can. Your arguments have always been about this car &#39;looks like&#39; the 944 so if it gets moved so should IT...


Now as far as adding extra weight to the 944 to fit it into ITA. If the cars are not getting down to weight then I would venture to say that the 300lb add every body is talking is really only about 150lbs, We all know how well weight worked to slow the BMW down in the past. Weight alone is not an effective tool and the first person to fully get after a 944 with prep. and driving skill will have an overdog out of the box.[/b]

Joe, the E36 BMW never got weight to slow it down, it got an SIR, remember? Besides, it wasn&#39;t about slowing it down as it was making it fit the process for ITS - in which it was either way to light or way overpowered for it&#39;s weight. All we want of for cars to fit this process, at an achievable weight - and teh chips will fall where they may.


PS. I do trust the process because I had a hand in developing the original. I am just concerned you all are trying to use to fine a comb though this deal. One misataken overdog will do more harm to a class than anything else. [/b]

And that is a valid concern, however there are mechanisms in place to correct overdogs. And if you think making an attempt to place a car into a class where it can actually make the weight we tell them they need to be in order to &#39;fit&#39; with other cars, so be it. I just see it as the right thing to do. Will a 2850lb 944 ruin ITA? I don&#39;t think so. Especially knowing that they have 30hp less than the 944S already in ITS, at 2850.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe I have to call BS again my man, as was posted already ( don&#39;t give me the crap about on track data ) show me a 944 at todays ITS weights ( or as close as can be ) that is a frontrunner in a good ITA field. Hell Chris C would have finished like 3rd at the ARRC in ITA and his car is a well driven 100% build 944S, not standard 944. There is not one shred of ontrack evidence that the 944 at 2800 or 2850 would be a overdog in any respect in ITA. I have my personal doubts that even as close as you could get to the ITS wieght you still would not have a overdog.. 2.5 liter means nothing if it is a maxed out tractor engine with a cam and intake from a mini van and little room for legal improvements....... i bet the 1.8 hondacura guys already put down close as much rwhp down as any 944...
[/b]


Feel free Fred, You prove that the car in question has been gutted hand stripped and reassembled from the a raw tub and that it doesn&#39;t have 100lbs of extra tubing in it. I have nothing to prove other than to say the process is not being applied equally and Andy even stated that when he said they were using a known HP figure. The process uses an estimated gain from OE numbers and that&#39;s how all the other cars have been classified. So this car is getting special consideration.....Period!

[lateapex911]

I guess east coast 944s must be heavier than west coast cars cause we have guys still racing them with power windows and passenger seats and doing quite well.


I know you don&#39;t want to here the SIR word but that&#39;s the only way that you could even get close to a fair argument for 2.5 liters to be moved to ITA. [/b]

First, "Doing quite well" isn&#39;t really a hard data point, is it..

And as far as "a close to fair arguement for a 2.5L car going to A", well do you think the owners of the 2.8 and 3.7 litre ITA cars will like the idea of a SIR? Becuase following your logic, then thats the route we&#39;ll have to go to make sure they&#39;re not overdogs too.

This isn&#39;t just about litres, or nameplaes....

[Joe Harlan]

First, "Doing quite well" isn&#39;t really a hard data point, is it..

And as far as "a close to fair arguement for a 2.5L car going to A", well do you think the owners of the 2.8 and 3.7 litre ITA cars will like the idea of a SIR? Becuase following your logic, then thats the route we&#39;ll have to go to make sure they&#39;re not overdogs too.

This isn&#39;t just about litres, or nameplaes....
[/b]

Yah jake lets use a couple worthless data points as an example. The AMC is never going to be built in any quantity that will ever matter. Was that car moved from ITS to ITA? Think not. Was it run through the process? Think not. and when you take the engine ability of that car based on the same IT type gains OHV verses the non-existant brakes and handling it is probably an ITC car. But the point is back to the 944 jake. Run the process in public on the list of cars I asked for and show me that the 944 is not an ITS car!

[Fastfred92]

I have nothing to prove other than to say the process is not being applied equally and Andy even stated that when he said they were using a known HP figure. The process uses an estimated gain from OE numbers and that&#39;s how all the other cars have been classified. So this car is getting special consideration.....Period!
[/b]


Joe I don&#39;t question the fact that you think you have valid concerns but i beg to differ with your view of the "process". The way I understand it if the board has valid data for a given car / powerplant they can use that info to adjust the generic process a la e36, gen II RX7 and yes the 944. My guess is that a 100% prep 240sx motor is within the boards process calculations and thus does not warrant any additional adjustment and as you have admitted here it can make minimum weight. The 944 can&#39;t make the 2006 ITS weight without a: illegal mods or b: a 90 lbs out of work jockey for a driver, period. Now question for you Joe is would you rather see the 944 gain process weight and move to A or would you favor special allowances for otherwise illeagl weight removal ( i know it is not an option but )

[Joe Harlan]

Joe I don&#39;t question the fact that you think you have valid concerns but i beg to differ with your view of the "process". The way I understand it if the board has valid data for a given car / powerplant they can use that info to adjust the generic process a la e36, gen II RX7 and yes the 944. My guess is that a 100% prep 240sx motor is within the boards process calculations and thus does not warrant any additional adjustment and as you have admitted here it can make minimum weight. The 944 can&#39;t make the 2006 ITS weight without a: illegal mods or b: a 90 lbs out of work jockey for a driver, period. Now question for you Joe is would you rather see the 944 gain process weight and move to A or would you favor special allowances for otherwise illeagl weight removal ( i know it is not an option but )
[/b]
Then lets see the data? Is there a reason not to post the list of cars here that I suggested? The Dyno information is likely 1 source.

What wheels are on these cars that can&#39;t make weight. How much sound deading is still in play. How many cars still have power windows in them lets get all the information and maybe even photos of a car that we are basing this on.

The deal is validate that the process is being applied the same and I will go away.

Fred I also suggested that to make weight you had to run the less than optimum configuration on the 240sx and expensive light weight wheels. SCCA has lots of cars in lots of classes that can&#39;t make their spec weight. Until you fix it for everyone I see it as a common problem many of us have.

[924Guy]

Sorry, while I respect the counterpoint you&#39;re providing on this discussion Joe, I have to take issue with this statement with respect to logic, mathematically speaking.

You can&#39;t prove a negative.

How would any of us prove, to you, that this is not possible?

Would the only acceptable method be to actually go and build a car, 10/10ths, with your supervision? I think you can recognize that such cannot be done simply for the purposes of this discussion. Can you suggest exactly how else we would go about proving such a negative, strictly for the purposes of this discussion?
[/b]

This seems to have gotten missed - Joe, I&#39;m awaiting comment on the above questions.

[Joe Harlan]

This seems to have gotten missed - Joe, I&#39;m awaiting comment on the above questions.
[/b]

Sorry I missed it. First let the ITAC prove the process be being equally applied to the cars I have asked for. Second I don&#39;t need to see it being built to know a good car or not somebody must have a fully prepped and developed car out there or we are making changes for no specific reason at all. Funny in racing we are forced to prove a negative everytime we ask for a change in classification or modification to the rules.

It has been admitted that the process was fudged from what was used on other cars so lets see what the process actually does.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, I tend to agree the 944 is an S car, but I think Andy did answer your question about the 944 and the process. The 944 gets less of an adder for hp due to the (in my view) proven limitations on the ability to get power out of the 2.5. Milledge says 180 at the crank, for big $$$, and everyone seems to accept that.

[Fastfred92]

Then lets see the data? Is there a reason not to post the list of cars here that I suggested? The Dyno information is likely 1 source. [/b]

My guess on the 944 is that the data for HP is from Milledge, fair enough b/c he may be the only pro engine builder who has invested in IT rules for a 944 just like everybody pegged Sunbelt as THE e36 engine people

Again I agree there are other examples of tweeners that have a hard time making weight, let them make the request and see what happens. For the disscussion here we will keep it limited to IT but there are also cars that just can&#39;t move down i.e. Mazda Protege in ITA ( not possible to make its ITA weight either )

[Andy Bettencourt]

Joe,

The process is getting applied evenly - AND smartly. You just don&#39;t like it because it doesn&#39;t fit your arguement. Here is the deal:

We use a 25% increase in hp for IT-legal mods as the standard. When we know something, we apply it. We do this in an effot to not have any overdogs. Otherwise, you are looking at a straight formula - that we know can&#39;t work. If we applied 25% to everything, there are plenty of cars that would absolutly DOMINATE. I know Kirk doesn&#39;t want to here this, but it really is a proactive PCA. Why have the 12A RX-7 run over everything for a year, wreck a class, and then use the exact same numbers we WOULD HAVE used up front, to make a PCA on the back end? Booo.

3 cars on your list get 3 different considerations for power - because we KNOW BETTER. The 944 is at 20%, the 240SX is at 25% and the RX-7 is at 30%. Without these proactive considerations (again, when we KNOW the numbers), the RX-7 would run wild with no competition. Other cars that would also ruin classes? 12A RX-7 in ITB (because it has what, 101 stock hp? Duh.), CRX in ITA, 13B RX-7 in ITS, etc.

Do you have a problem with the CRB taking a proactive approach to classing cars?

(FYI: Milledge says 185 at the crank, we use 189 or a 20% increase)

[lateapex911]

Yah jake lets use a couple worthless data points as an example. The AMC is never going to be built in any quantity that will ever matter. Was that car moved from ITS to ITA? Think not. Was it run through the process? Think not. and when you take the engine ability of that car based on the same IT type gains OHV verses the non-existant brakes and handling it is probably an ITC car. But the point is back to the 944 jake. Run the process in public on the list of cars I asked for and show me that the 944 is not an ITS car!
[/b]

Well, the point is, that different cars have different engines with different configurrations and different injection systems and different valvetrains and different cams and different....wait for it....sizes.

So, in ITA, we have a 4.2 liter AMC, a 3.7 litre Chevy (and Buick sister), a 2.7 litre Ford, a 2.8 litre Pontiac, and a 2.7 litre BMW. ALL, by the way run at less weight than the 944 proposed weight.

I shouldn&#39;t be trotting out other cars...it&#39;s not about other cars. It&#39;s about the 944, but I did it to illustrate the variables involved.

The process is about balancing variables. Weight is one of those variables. If the prescribed weight is unattainable, it thows off the process.

The ITAC is investigating whether the car can or can not come reasonable close to the intended weight. And the guys on the ITAC are bright enough to look at the answers and ask the good questions, like: Total strip? Light hardware? What cage tubes are in? Wheels and tires? Seat? Driver weight? Fuel cell? Method of attaching the cel? And so on.

As for power, when there are well known real world numbers, those are taken into consideration. Again the aim of the process is to class properly. IF we KNOW the car makes more....or less, then we need to take that into consideration, especially when we know WHY it makes the power it makes.

[Joe Harlan]

Well, the point is, that different cars have different engines with different configurrations and different injection systems and different valvetrains and different cams and different....wait for it....sizes.

So, in ITA, we have a 4.2 liter AMC, a 3.7 litre Chevy (and Buick sister), a 2.7 litre Ford, a 2.8 litre Pontiac, and a 2.7 litre BMW. ALL, by the way run at less weight than the 944 proposed weight.

I shouldn&#39;t be trotting out other cars...it&#39;s not about other cars. It&#39;s about the 944, but I did it to illustrate the variables involved.

The process is about balancing variables. Weight is one of those variables. If the prescribed weight is unattainable, it thows off the process.

The ITAC is investigating whether the car can or can not come reasonable close to the intended weight. And the guys on the ITAC are bright enough to look at the answers and ask the good questions, like: Total strip? Light hardware? What cage tubes are in? Wheels and tires? Seat? Driver weight? Fuel cell? Method of attaching the cel? And so on.

As for power, when there are well known real world numbers, those are taken into consideration. Again the aim of the process is to class properly. IF we KNOW the car makes more....or less, then we need to take that into consideration, especially when we know WHY it makes the power it makes.
[/b]

You both get the bingo. You have one set of numbers you are using and that is from aguy that is invested in making sure this product wins (good business guy) Maybe the numbers are understated? Maybe they have ot found everything there is to find. Again you have stated the process is no being applied the same and thats all I needed to here.
Andy as far as me being upset for any other reason than the fairness of classification is a pretty cheap shot. As I stated in the begining I was sure the process was not being applied equally and you have validated that thought. The process is now a matter of who is running the ITAC and not a standard that will passed on from ITAC to ITAC as was intended.

Jake in all the examples you are showing they are all push rod engines with piss poor brakes and very small participation numbers...

PS the proactive approach to classing new cars is a completely different argument Andy and you know it. If the process is applied fairly to a new car then the process will work if the model is skewed with one sided data then we will be back to what it was 3 years ago.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So how would you apply the process Joe? 25% for everyone and let the &#39;car to have&#39; syndrome come back? If so, I will start building my 2150lb ITB 12A RX-7.

The process is being applied fairly and consistantly. Just as it was when Darin was involved. Nothing has changed. REMEMBER, it&#39;s a PROCESS, not a formula.

[lateapex911]

You both get the bingo. You have one set of numbers you are using and that is from aguy that is invested in making sure this product wins (good business guy) Maybe the numbers are understated? [/b]

Which is counter to good business sense...spending $15K for ONLY 185hp is a tough pill to swallow. IF he was making more, I think he&#39;d be making life a LOT easier on himself by stating that.



Jake in all the examples you are showing they are all push rod engines with piss poor brakes and very small participation numbers... [/b]

The BMW is a 6 cyl. 84 x 81 (stroke vs bore) motor with 2.7 litres, SOHC (no pushrods that I am aware of) with 287mm front vented discs, and the 944 is a 100 x 79 4 cylinder with a huge balance shaft displacing 2.5 litres, and front discs of 283mm.

So it&#39;s not really that apples to oranges.

[Joe Harlan]

Which is counter to good business sense...spending $15K for ONLY 185hp is a tough pill to swallow. IF he was making more, I think he&#39;d be making life a LOT easier on himself by stating that.
The BMW is a 6 cyl. 84 x 81 (stroke vs bore) motor with 2.7 litres, SOHC (no pushrods that I am aware of) with 287mm front vented discs, and the 944 is a 100 x 79 4 cylinder with a huge balance shaft displacing 2.5 litres, and front discs of 283mm.

So it&#39;s not really that apples to oranges.
[/b]

So you got one you feel better? What was the specific reason that theBMW was placed in ITA? If my memory is right the factory HP rating was low and the factory curb weight was high using the process as it was originally meant to be used. And sroyy Jake but you can sell alot more overdogs any day of the week.


BMW spec: 9.0:1 compression 126BHP and factory 2700lbs curb weight. Run the numbers Jake thats a ITA car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So how would you apply the process Joe? 25% for everyone and let the &#39;car to have&#39; syndrome come back? If so, I will start building my 2150lb ITB 12A RX-7.

The process is being applied fairly and consistantly. Just as it was when Darin was involved. Nothing has changed. REMEMBER, it&#39;s a PROCESS, not a formula. [/b]

Joe?

[Joe Harlan]

Joe?
[/b]
As stated before Andy i understand the process has flaws but you guys are tryingto run the comb to fine. I am not going to argue over the same points. comparing a rotory to a piston motor is not apples and apples so don&#39;t play that game cause you know I am not that stupid. We are talking piston engines and factory power outputs and the system was never and will never make things a perfect world but it will clearly get them one hell of a bunch better that the E36 vs everything else deal was. Based on 158 stock HP the 944 is in the same boat as the 240sx and while the 240sx may make weight it has to remove better parts to do so.

Done you guys have at it and I will make my case to the CRB as they are the final deciders in this deal. You have admitted the process is not being used equally. The Rotary divider is and has always been different than a piston engine just as it would be if turbos were let into the field.


B. INTENT
It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed. Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well you are wrong Joe. The process is being used fairly and equitably. If you can&#39;t see it, fine. I could site the ITA CRX as a piston engine that gains about 35% over stock rated HP...

The CRB is on every ITAC call and they know exactly how the process works and is being applied.

[Joe Harlan]

Well you are wrong Joe. The process is being used fairly and equitably. If you can&#39;t see it, fine. I could site the ITA CRX as a piston engine that gains about 35% over stock rated HP...

The CRB is on every ITAC call and they know exactly how the process works and is being applied.
[/b]

Yeah I got the feeling we would get to that point.

Again You admitted that the process is not being applied the same. Why would you trot out a 35% gain in the CRX, unless you can provide actual Dyno information in public you are not making a good case. Was the CRX handled under the normal process or was 35% considered on that model only? It is starting to sound like the process is becoming a WAG all over again.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Joe,

I am done with this. I don&#39;t understand why you don&#39;t get it. The process is applied thusly: we use actualy numbers when we know them, and a 25% estimate when we don&#39;t. It is applied consistantly in that fashion. Yes, we don&#39;t use the same numbers for every car - and the reasons have been explained to you numerous times.

If you think that piston engines should all get the same % and that rotories should all get another %, then I submit that all that gets you is where we were - overdogs and underdogs. Boooo.

The IT classes have never been more level - and that is because the ITAC/CRB use real data when possible to avoid trouble on the front end.

I realize you don&#39;t agree with this philosophy but have yet to hear why any other way would be better. I will let others debate from here but please lay out a better plan as you obviously see flaws in this one.

Done.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

I am done with this. I don&#39;t understand why you don&#39;t get it. The process is applied thusly: we use actualy numbers when we know them, and a 25% estimate when we don&#39;t. It is applied consistantly in that fashion. Yes, we don&#39;t use the same numbers for every car - and the reasons have been explained to you numerous times.

If you think that piston engines should all get the same % and that rotories should all get another %, then I submit that all that gets you is where we were - overdogs and underdogs. Boooo.

The IT classes have never been more level - and that is because the ITAC/CRB use real data when possible to avoid trouble on the front end.

I realize you don&#39;t agree with this philosophy but have yet to hear why any other way would be better. I will let others debate from here but please lay out a better plan as you obviously see flaws in this one.

Done.
[/b]

Andy, here is the last point. I do get it and have always got it. As I said Data from one source is not adequate. Next nobody has actually shown the 944 can&#39;t make weight. And finally when you move the 944 down and realize the great balance ITA once had is now skewded by an overdog will you be able to fix it? The process works if those in charge understand the need to remember to use it responsibly. And BTW just so it is understood I would be arguing this point just as hard if it was the S14 being considered for this same treatment.

I find it interesting the number of ITA cars that are forsale as of late. maybe others see the writing is already on the wall.

Have a happy new year.
Joe

PS. I am plenty capable if disagreeing with some one and still respecting thier efforts.

[dickita15]

I got to say Joe I do not understand why you feel using different HP gains for different cars is wrong. We put people in these jobs such as the ITAC do use their best knowledge and judgment. If they know that different engines respond differently to IT mods I fully expect them to use that information in the process. The ITAC uses brake size and suspension design. Do you think that should be the same on all cars as well?

My guess here is that you have a gut feeling that moving the 944 is a bad idea and the attacks on the process are because of that alone rather that any disappointment with how the process has worked overall.

[924Guy]

Joe - In response to my request as to just how we would prove, to your satisfaction, that a 944 cannot be brought down to 2575, you said the following:



Second I don&#39;t need to see it being built to know a good car or not somebody must have a fully prepped and developed car out there or we are making changes for no specific reason at all. Funny in racing we are forced to prove a negative everytime we ask for a change in classification or modification to the rules.
[/b]

Yet you just again said:



Next nobody has actually shown the 944 can&#39;t make weight.
[/b]

I seem to recall COUNTLESS references to Chris Camadella&#39;s efforts. Would you dismiss that as "just one car?" I think the basic understanding here is that Chris&#39;s racing effort has been unquestionably 10/10ths for quite some time now; I think everyone on this thread would readily agree with that - would you?

If so, then forgetting on-track performance, if even Chris cannot get his car down to 2575, by your own stated terms, you have been proven wrong.

So, Chris - how light did you/can you get your 8V car?

Or have you now conceded the weight point? Seems like your whole focus has shifted to the power rating, which would be consistent with ignoring the lost point.

I was looking over an IT 924S in build yesterday and was reminded of yet another example of why these cars ARE special: most IT cars didn&#39;t come from the factory with tubular headers. Not much power gain OR weight savings there... just one more example of why these cars DO require some different perspective.

[Joe Harlan]

I got to say Joe I do not understand why you feel using different HP gains for different cars is wrong. We put people in these jobs such as the ITAC do use their best knowledge and judgment. If they know that different engines respond differently to IT mods I fully expect them to use that information in the process. The ITAC uses brake size and suspension design. Do you think that should be the same on all cars as well?

My guess here is that you have a gut feeling that moving the 944 is a bad idea and the attacks on the process are because of that alone rather that any disappointment with how the process has worked overall.
[/b]


Dick, I am fully aware of how the process works since I had a hand in it in the begining and I fully understand that parts are subjective at best. The thing that I am disappointed in is that the procress is now being used in a way it was promised it would not be....(full on competition adjustment) That is not what the process was designed to do. It was designed more with new classifications in mind and to correct large mistakes in classifiction in the past.

Vaughn, please I am not ignoring Chris&#39;s build but again he is running a 944S. As far as tublar headers from the factory I will be these car will respond to a better design as well as any other car. The car is clearly closer to an S car than a A car and should remain there. And Vaughn I have not conceded the weight issue nobody has come here and indicated they have had a body down to a raw tub and stripped every last bit of legal weight off it, Nobody has shown they are running the lighest exhaust or the lightest wheels possible. Nobody has shown they are running 15" inch wheels instead of 16" wheels to try to get to weight. I think you will find many other models that have the same issues if not fully prepared to the maximum extent of the rules. If we don&#39;t want to consider stripping as part of full development then make a rule that says undercoating and sound material must remain. Until then it is part of the effort of building an IT car.

Thanks for the time but I am done arguing here.
Joe

[924Guy]

Yeah, but last I heard Chris&#39;s last car WAS an 8v non-S 944.

Sure, the stock header can be improved on - but only slightly, it&#39;s not the same as dumping a stock, cast iron, log-style manifold as found on most IT cars.

I would be shocked to hear of ANYONE running a 944 using 16" wheels - why even go there. Many run stock 15" Fuchs forged rims, they&#39;re about 12lbs each - good luck beating that with aftermarket stuff.

I think a lot of the stuff you&#39;re calling out here are pretty obvious things to check off the list during a build... please, give us just a little credit for ingenuity...

FWIW yes my undercoating and all other insulation and padding is gone excepting only the undercoating on the underside of the floorpan between the wheel wells:

http://vaughanscott.com/Races/2005/Race1_05/DSCN1924.JPG

http://vaughanscott.com/construction/firebottle1.jpg

http://vaughanscott.com/construction/front_susp1.jpg

Is that clearer?

[Joe Harlan]

Yeah, but last I heard Chris&#39;s last car WAS an 8v non-S 944.

Sure, the stock header can be improved on - but only slightly, it&#39;s not the same as dumping a stock, cast iron, log-style manifold as found on most IT cars.

I would be shocked to hear of ANYONE running a 944 using 16" wheels - why even go there. Many run stock 15" Fuchs forged rims, they&#39;re about 12lbs each - good luck beating that with aftermarket stuff.

I think a lot of the stuff you&#39;re calling out here are pretty obvious things to check off the list during a build... please, give us just a little credit for ingenuity...

FWIW yes my undercoating and all other insulation and padding is gone excepting only the undercoating on the underside of the floorpan between the wheel wells:http://vaughanscott.com/Races/2005/Race1_05/DSCN1924.JPG

http://vaughanscott.com/construction/firebottle1.jpg

http://vaughanscott.com/construction/front_susp1.jpg

Is that clearer?
[/b]

c. Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed. They may be installed in the original instrument(s) location

Still running the stock tank? Carbon Seat? Undecoating is heavy. I know it seems petty but these are all issues other cars are doing to ge to weight. Whaat does your car weigh as it sits WO driver?

BTW The photos I have seen of Chris&#39;s car it is prepared well but I don&#39;t see a fuel cell I do see a big muffler and Stock Cookie cutter wheels. I have no idea if any of these things are already changed or there is no advantage to changing them and in no way mean any disrespect to the effort.

The biggest point is that an example of a stripped and dipped raw chassis has not appeared yet.

[924Guy]

As you can see, I have worked-over my gauges. I just do it in such a way that it looks stock - well, apart from the data system. Speedo and tach are gone. Oh, yeah, I guess I still could get rid of that cigarette lighter, lose a few ounces. :rolleyes:

Stock tank - yes, mine is smaller than a 944 BTW.

Aluminum (Kirkey) seat; have an OMP composite, but it&#39;s no lighter than the Kirkey.

My car is 2450 without driver or ballast, as mentioned.

[Joe Harlan]

As you can see, I have worked-over my gauges. I just do it in such a way that it looks stock - well, apart from the data system. Speedo and tach are gone. Oh, yeah, I guess I still could get rid of that cigarette lighter, lose a few ounces. :rolleyes:

Stock tank - yes, mine is smaller than a 944 BTW.

Aluminum (Kirkey) seat; have an OMP composite, but it&#39;s no lighter than the Kirkey.

My car is 2450 without driver or ballast, as mentioned.
[/b]

So 2650 with the average SCCA driver. That looks like 75 lbs to get to 2575. Looks doable. How much does the rubber spoiler weigh? + the undercoat that you say is still there. like about 40 net loss with 8 gal cell maybe another 25 lbs in stripping and repaint from bare metal 5 lbs in the fire bottle. Windows still in the doors?

Whats your exhaust like? Lot of weight is missed in the exhaust. You getting my point. It won&#39;t be easy but the weight is there. You are right your not gonna get it 20lbs at a time but it can be found.

[Fastfred92]

So 2650 with the average SCCA driver. That looks like 75 lbs to get to 2575. Looks doable. How much does the rubber spoiler weigh? + the undercoat that you say is still there. like about 40 net loss with 8 gal cell maybe another 25 lbs in stripping and repaint from bare metal 5 lbs in the fire bottle. Windows still in the doors?

Whats your exhaust like? Lot of weight is missed in the exhaust. You getting my point. It won&#39;t be easy but the weight is there. You are right your not gonna get it 20lbs at a time but it can be found.
[/b]

First Happy new year Joe and all.....

Second, come on Joe, be reasonable! looks to me like 924guy is running a 924 which is 100 lbs lighter than a 944 to start with, he is got a pretty minimum cage ( would need nascar bars to lose door glass= net wash ), running a stock tank which is pretty light and 15" cookie cutters are very light!( good luck finding some light weight 5x130 wheels ) Yea he could do away with 5 lbs of guages and maybe another few pounds here and there but if it is indeed a 924 we are still talking another 150 lbs to go... How many other cars classed in IT need World Challenge level of dipping and stripping just to get to class weight with the therotical 180 lbs driver, much less room for stuff like ballast?

BTW I would want more cage in my car and I am not sure if you can legally remove the rear spoiler because it is part of the rear hatch glass

[Joe Harlan]

First Happy new year Joe and all.....

Second, come on Joe, be reasonable! looks to me like 924guy is running a 924 which is 100 lbs lighter than a 944 to start with, he is got a pretty minimum cage ( would need nascar bars to lose door glass= net wash ), running a stock tank which is pretty light and 15" cookie cutters are very light!( good luck finding some light weight 5x130 wheels ) Yea he could do away with 5 lbs of guages and maybe another few pounds here and there but if it is indeed a 924 we are still talking another 150 lbs to go... How many other cars classed in IT need World Challenge level of dipping and stripping just to get to class weight with the therotical 180 lbs driver, much less room for stuff like ballast?

BTW I would want more cage in my car and I am not sure if you can legally remove the rear spoiler because it is part of the rear hatch glass
[/b]

If I rember correctly the 924 was pretty sparse in creature comforts compared to the porky 944 and i would venture to say in raw tub form they are pretty close in weight. The argument that it won&#39;t be easy is not a good argument, there are plenty of other cars out there that aren&#39;t easy to get weight out of but the front runners are doing it. This is exactly why I oppose this move because it looks like we are more concerned with easy rather than proper. not all cars are gonna be easy to get competitive 240sx S14 is one example. It&#39;s not an easy car to get down to weight but people are trying their collective butts off to do it. As far as wheels go that&#39;s the great thing today, you can have a wheel custom built for about anything.

Again Fred Happy new year.
edit: from the spec 944 website


Basic 944-spec modifications include upgrades to springs, torsion bars, sway bars and removal of most interior components. Minimum class weight is 2600 lbs with driver and represents a 350 to 500 lbs reduction from stock weight. This weight reduction is achieved without the need to swap steel body panels for fiberglass or to replace any window glass thus minimizing build cost. Engines are mostly stock with only few minor changes allowed. See the 944-spec rules page for complete listing of rules.[/b]

Kinda interesting that these guys are getting it done?

[924Guy]

No, my 924 was a late one, same creature comforts (power windows, mirrors, AC, etc) as the 944... but lighter engine (as I noted previously, direct from the factory manuals).

Yes, IMO the doors would be a wash due to the extra steel; same with the fuel cell, due to the extra steel required to mount it. Yes, the cage is minimal. 5 lbs gauges? Where do you think I bought those gauges, Jegs???

You want me to ditch my firebottle? Probably my H+N restraint is extra unnecessary weight too, eh? :mad1:

I don&#39;t seem to recall anywhere in the rules that you&#39;re allowed to remove a spoiler that was standard, but it definitely would slow you down (due to increased drag).

My exhaust? 2.5" stainless straight pipe with a couple of race bullet mufflers - barely makes sound, quite light (with header, OF COURSE).

Definitely not 40lbs of undercoating, or 20, still there. You did look at the pics, right? You didn&#39;t read my previous posts.

I&#39;m also running 15x6 rims, since of course I&#39;m in ITB - another weight savings.

Are they getting 2600# done in 944Spec? If they are, yes, that is interesting.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry Joe, gotta blow you up on this one. I asked the NASA guys - and the ones who understood SCCA rules vs. NASA rules said no.

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=12669

Add to that, the S944 guys can remove more stuff. (Lighter batteries, heater core and blower motor)

And as to your comment about full comp adjustments - BS. This has absolutley ZERO to do with on-track results. The process as a whole has nothing to do with on-track results too.

All we are doing is evaluating the &#39;process&#39; weight in S and in A. I don&#39;t see any evidence that it&#39;s a comp adjustment...EVERY car in the GCR should have a chance to &#39;exist&#39; on track as the process says it should in order to be inside the performance envelope of the class designation on the side of the car. The CRB won&#39;t guarantee that a car can win, but it SHOULD guarantee that it can live in the same zip code as it&#39;s competitors. If SCCA calssing does make sense, people will leave.

Everyone here seems to understand the goal and the &#39;fairness&#39; of this thought process except for you.

[Joe Harlan]

No, my 924 was a late one, same creature comforts (power windows, mirrors, AC, etc) as the 944... but lighter engine (as I noted previously, direct from the factory manuals).

Yes, IMO the doors would be a wash due to the extra steel; same with the fuel cell, due to the extra steel required to mount it. Yes, the cage is minimal. 5 lbs gauges? Where do you think I bought those gauges, Jegs???

You want me to ditch my firebottle? Probably my H+N restraint is extra unnecessary weight too, eh? :mad1:

I don&#39;t seem to recall anywhere in the rules that you&#39;re allowed to remove a spoiler that was standard, but it definitely would slow you down (due to increased drag).

My exhaust? 2.5" stainless straight pipe with a couple of race bullet mufflers - barely makes sound, quite light (with header, OF COURSE).

Definitely not 40lbs of undercoating, or 20, still there. You did look at the pics, right? You didn&#39;t read my previous posts.

I&#39;m also running 15x6 rims, since of course I&#39;m in ITB - another weight savings.
Are they getting 2600# done in 944Spec? If they are, yes, that is interesting.
[/b]
Well WTH are we even discussing your car for then? I did,&#39;t say ditch your bottle I said you could loose 5 lbs in the bottle. I may be wrong but that looks like a 10lb pheonix system. Second I have installed enough fuel cells in enough different cars that I can say you will end up with a net loss. Gutting the doors will also net a loss. Point being you asked me what it would take to convince me. It will take a higher level of prep than you have presented so far. No offense but there is probably another 10lbs in hollow custom sway bars. Show me a fully prepped ITS example not an ITB car. Again Sorry I am not going to waste anymore time on this kinda argument. As I stated before the process is being used in a different method on this car and a prime example car has not been used to prove they can&#39;t make weight. At least 2 or 3 other sanctioning bodies use 2600 as a minimum weight in basic IT trim so there must be some proof they can get there.

Have fun y&#39;all

[924Guy]

Because it&#39;s a comparison point that I&#39;m willing to disclose fully and both discuss and document all details. Chris C. hasn&#39;t has much to add to this discussion - no slam against him. But everyone who knows the 924 and 944 knows the cars ARE close enough for comparisons to be drawn.

The points you are bringing up are 5 lbs here, 2 lbs there. Not more than 50lbs total - and you need to find 150lbs. You&#39;re not finding it.

To details: yes, that&#39;s a 10lb Phoenix system. Fuel cell - that&#39;s more than I have installed - how many pounds, exactly? Same on doors.

Hollow sway bars - again, you&#39;ve proven my point about how you take our clumsiness for granted. I&#39;m running hollow 34mm t-bars, and they weigh no more or less than my old 30mm t-bars.

You&#39;ve still failed to make your point.

[Joe Harlan]

Sorry Joe, gotta blow you up on this one. I asked the NASA guys - and the ones who understood SCCA rules vs. NASA rules said no.

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=12669

Add to that, the S944 guys can remove more stuff. (Lighter batteries, heater core and blower motor)

And as to your comment about full comp adjustments - BS. This has absolutley ZERO to do with on-track results. The process as a whole has nothing to do with on-track results too.

All we are doing is evaluating the &#39;process&#39; weight in S and in A. I don&#39;t see any evidence that it&#39;s a comp adjustment...EVERY car in the GCR should have a chance to &#39;exist&#39; on track as the process says it should in order to be inside the performance envelope of the class designation on the side of the car. The CRB won&#39;t guarantee that a car can win, but it SHOULD guarantee that it can live in the same zip code as it&#39;s competitors. If SCCA calssing does make sense, people will leave.

Everyone here seems to understand the goal and the &#39;fairness&#39; of this thought process except for you.
[/b]

No Andy there is more than just me, It that other feel your mind is already made and comp adjustments will become the norm.

Edit: Andy you crack me up....2 guys within 25lbs and one guy says no way. You have no idea what the prep level on any of those cars are.....If we are gonna use that kind of data then the system is clearly inb trouble. Unreal my friend.

Oh and the guy that says no way runs a 944 rental program heres a photo of his car.
http://www.comeauracing.com/images/gallery/944-red-new-graphics.jpg

I think that passenger seat and the phone dial wheels could be some weight, how much other stuff is still there.

Vaughn, Sorry dude but you have made the case, you are 75lbs off the ITS weight using your car as a data point and just with the photos you provided I can see where to get real close if not adding balast when done. won&#39;t be cheap and it won&#39;t be easy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Joe,

We are so far form having enough data it&#39;s scary. They are all data points. Good data, bad data, just data. Don&#39;t worry about the decision.

Comp adjustments have to do with on-track. Can&#39;t help you if you are stuck on this.

This issue is so simple and you are making it a huge deal - it isn&#39;t. This CONSIDERATION would be given to any car in this situation - and if you think it&#39;s a CA, you would be wrong. I haven&#39;t heard from anyone else who thinks teh sky is falling because the ITAC/CRb wants to use known information to avoid overdog issues.

[ryoji]

Are they getting 2600# done in 944Spec? If they are, yes, that is interesting.
[/b]

944 spec allows you to remove almost everything not related to race, like heater core, windows and its mechanizm, unused elec. wires, head lights, side panels, non-race related elec. motors, etc.

[924Guy]

Ryoji - do you mean 944 Spec or 944 Cup? That sounds like 944 Cup to me. I don&#39;t see any specific comments in the 944Spec rules that allow you to do any non-IT legal mods for weight reduction.

Andy, Joe - You both should be aware that not only does Tim C. rent a car - he also is ihs Regional Series Director and was instrumental in creating the 944Spec class. He has no desire to help clarify the situation for ITS racers - see my previous obscenely long post about attitudes and philosophies of other 944 racers. No slam against him, but obviously he&#39;s promoting what&#39;s in his best interest. NASA racing is run as a business, not a club; they don&#39;t want competition for racers, and would rather nab up the whole field. BTDT - again, see my previous post for qualifications. (I can also tell he&#39;s talking quite a bit tongue-in-check with his comments there in that thread - it&#39;d be hard to not notice, in fact).

And, frankly, the Spec and Cup series are gonna be hard to beat for appeal to a 944 racer - the rules are designed explicitly for them. As I&#39;ve said before, it&#39;s probably not a reasonable expectation to think that you&#39;re either going to take weight off the ITS car or drop it to ITA - even at the same weight! - and suck up a whole bunch of those racers.

I got a crazy thought - what about the original question of this thread?

HAVE ANY ITS 944&#39;S MADE ANY PROGRESS IN ACTUAL RACE RESULTS IN ITS AFTER REMOVING ANY WEIGHT??? How light have they gotten? I think I may be the only one here who&#39;s actually disclosed his car weight...

[ryoji]

That is 944spec.

(The Cup does not allow much extra for the car selecting SCCA rule set...does not need much since the Cup&#39;s minimum weight for SCCA rule set car is 2800.)

I was almost buying a ready spec car, and listing parts missing to run in SCCA or the Cup, and decided not to, since there are too many items were missing. In addition, they allow to have welded A and B pillars, up to 10 mounting points to compensate minimum cage structure.

The below is the instruction posted by the director of 944spec on another forum.


He is preparing the car to 944 spec (SP1 rules) so there are number things he CAN&#39;T do.

1) Mirrors must be stock on the outside. IE full flag mirrors, inside can be anything
2) Body panels must remain steel
3) Bumpers must be stock
4) No lexan allow in windshield, rear hatch or qtr windows.
5) Cutting away large bits of the metal shell is really frowned upon (don&#39;t do it)
6) Stock gauges must remain.

What he can remove
1) Everything that is bolted down and is not needed to operate the car
2) All coatings both inside the car and under the car
3) The 40lbs of heat shielding between the engine and firewall.
4) A/C and all parts
5) heater and all associated parts
6) Body mouldings including front & rear bumper pads
7) powersteering and all related parts
8) Door glass and all related parts. (Please keep the stock door bar for safety)
9) Lightweight battery (instock location only)
10) Any bits of wire harness that was used for removad components
11) All misc brackets used to support removed parts
12) Windshield wipers, motors & linkages (BTW... you can races safely with just a driver&#39;s side wiper)
13) All headliner and or sunroof parts (must fix in place stock roof panel)
14) rear hatch motor and related parts (use key to open rear hatch)
15) hood and hatch lift shocks
16) Replace heavy cast iron headers with ligher stock tube headers
17) Cat replaced with Test pipe
18) Replace muffer with straight pipe (must meet local sound limits however)
19) Driver&#39;s seat only with Aluminum Side rails
20) 1.75 x .095 DOM custom cage with close eye paid to not "jungle gym" the car with 500 tubes.
21) "Late 944" smaller lighter starter motor.[/b]

[944-spec#94]

Are they getting 2600# done in 944Spec? If they are, yes, that is interesting.
[/b]

Yes we are getting 2600lbs in 944 spec.

here is how.... Not sure all that is legal to remove in IT. Also some chassis just seem to be quite heavy. Not sure why, but they stuggle to get to 2600lbs. Most can get close at least. Royj added most of the text about what a 944 spec can car remove to get to weight, but I have added in a few more details.


If you can remove all the things we can in 944 spec then 2675 is achieveable to some guys. Bigger guys in later chassis will cry foul. (They already do at 2600lbs). Still I think 2600lbs is far for our class. Reason? Some guys add a little weight other need to eat a few less doughnuts. ;) Seems fair if you piss of both ends of scale.


Now if you can&#39;t remove all that the 944 spec car is allowed to remove then getting to 2575 is going to very hard. I might be possible, but most cars will be 50-75lbs over weight (2625-2650). I think the ideal weight for 944 in IT trim is about 2630-2650. Best weight considering what can and can&#39;t be removed. However this weight is really inbetween what is needed for ITA or ITS.


--------------------------

With respect to some weight numbers and what can be achieved.

my Chassis is an 84. This past racing weekend I went over the scales with 40lbs of ballast and low fuel (but still 2 gallons in the tank) 2633 was the number both days. I am about 165 with full gear. My class min is 2600lbs

Below is complitation of a few things told another racer looking to lose weight in his 944 (his target was a 200lbs driver and 2550lbs min which would be strech in my mind). This applies to 944 spec rules so you can see what of the kind of things we allow that IT may not. Hopefully it will help with the discussion on the ability for a 944 to get to 2575lbs in IT trim.

----
I figure I can do the following in my car to cut some more weight . (from 2633 my 155 weight)
1) Remove 40 lbs of ballast -40 => 2593 lbs
2) Light weight batter vs stock - 15 lbs => 2577lbs
3) Remove door glass & door panels (motors & arms gone already) - 15 lbs => 2562 lbs (I would probably stop here since would be close to min and like have the pass seat for rides.
4) Remove pass seat & heavy mounting -15 => 2547lbs
5) Tackle remaining interior goop - 5lbs => 2542lbs
6) Remaing emissions crap in engine - 1lbs => 2541lbs
7) fresh air blower motor and heater box - 6lbs => 2535lbs
8) Aluminum mount bar for my turbo oil cooler vs steel - 1lbs => 2534lbs
9) After this I would just start looking alot more closely at everything. I am pretty sure I could take away 5-10lbs more lbs if I had time to really study it more. Given I add ballast now I have given up the search for more weight reduction.

[924Guy]

Undestood, and thanks for the response; I&#39;m in exactly the same position, both with ballast and actual weight, though I&#39;ve stripped my car a bit more than you have. If nothing else, it would seem that the early cars are on the same footing as a 924 WRT weight - actually surprising, given the extra engine weight. May be helpful for comparison purposes also to point out that SCCA uses a standard driver weight of 180lbs, so the ITS car must get down to 2575-180 = 2395(!) in order to really cut it. As Joe (H) has pointed out - yeah, I could do this to my 924 if I needed.

The only things I see on the above lists that are definitely not IT-legal are lightweight battery, heater core removal (though they&#39;re reasonably light when empty), wiring harness, and windshield wipers/motor/linkage. That&#39;s on the order of 50lbs or less. Furthermore I&#39;m uncertain about the hatch and sunroof motors - and that&#39;s a substantial chunk of weight, maybe 20lbs. The headlights, that&#39;d be another chunk of substantial weight - possibly as much as 25lbs, with those big glass bulbs? Of course I&#39;m looking at the 944Spec rules with the IT-standard rule perspective - If It Doesn&#39;t Say You Can You Can&#39;t (IIDSYCYC).

So between the above observations and comparisons - we&#39;re still coming up at 50-100 lbs short of the goal, to say nothing of fat drivers. ;)

Hmmm...

[944-spec#94]

944 spec rules philosphy is when it comes to weight reduction.


"If you can unbolt it, scrap it off, is non metal and can cut it off, and the car is still safe to run and operate in racing environment and it does not look like crappy hack job... remove it."

So for this reason we don&#39;t list what you can remove, but more what you can&#39;t remove or replace.

[Joe Harlan]

Thanks for the info Joe.

I took this this morning at the hospitol..I guess the spoiler was an option.

[attachmentid=755]

[944-spec#94]

Thanks for the info Joe.

I took this this morning at the hospitol..I guess the spoiler was an option.

[attachmentid=755]
[/b]


That is a 924 (2.0L ITB). Only some of them came with spoilers. All 944 had spoilers. The 924S has a smaller spoiler than a 944, but looks similar.

[lateapex911]

An option?? On a 944?

But hey, "I guess" is close enough...everybody yank their spoilers to make weight...!

OK, a little humor there, but you can see the point. If, on one hand, you say, "What the hell" (are we even discussig this for) when you discover that Vaughans car is a 924, then how can you post a pic of a 924 and make the point that the spoiler is an option....on a 944??? Seem a little double standard? Answer carefully......

And all this talk about "not having a single car to prove it can&#39;t make weight"....is silly. Really...we have done the math up the thread, and if we were paying attention, we&#39;d know it was comparing a 924 to a 944, and the differences were posted. So Vaughans car is relevant. Not to mention, we can do some simple math. Undercoating left over from a tub strip? He described the area. We&#39;re talking 7 pounds. Wheels? Well, I guess we can commision OZ to pop out a set of CF wheels that&#39;ll weigh 8 -9 pounds, saving about 12. And yes, it looks like there are some guage bits in there still, so thats 3 more pounds. A cel? Thats nearly a wash, but lets be generous and say 10.

So, that adds up to....29. Now, add the non removable 944 stuff, and we&#39;re back up to 75 -100 pounds heavy.

As for the "Competition adjustment" comment...stop, wrong track, back that train up. Calling BS on that.

[Joe Harlan]

An option?? On a 944?

But hey, "I guess" is close enough...everybody yank their spoilers to make weight...!

OK, a little humor there, but you can see the point. If, on one hand, you say, "What the hell" (are we even discussig this for) when you discover that Vaughans car is a 924, then how can you post a pic of a 924 and make the point that the spoiler is an option....on a 944??? Seem a little double standard? Answer carefully......

And all this talk about "not having a single car to prove it can&#39;t make weight"....is silly. Really...we have done the math up the thread, and if we were paying attention, we&#39;d know it was comparing a 924 to a 944, and the differences were posted. So Vaughans car is relevant. Not to mention, we can do some simple math. Undercoating left over from a tub strip? He described the area. We&#39;re talking 7 pounds. Wheels? Well, I guess we can commision OZ to pop out a set of CF wheels that&#39;ll weigh 8 -9 pounds, saving about 12. And yes, it looks like there are some guage bits in there still, so thats 3 more pounds. A cel? Thats nearly a wash, but lets be generous and say 10.

So, that adds up to....29. Now, add the non removable 944 stuff, and we&#39;re back up to 75 -100 pounds heavy.

As for the "Competition adjustment" comment...stop, wrong track, back that train up. Calling BS on that.
[/b]

Jake note the word Guess....Had I known for a fact I would have said so. Next moving the 944 is a comp adjustment and nothing more if you leave all the other cars in ITS that are faced with a hard road to get to minimum weight.

[lateapex911]

"All the other cars.."??? [/b]
The ITAC would love to hear about these cars and see the math. If they are in the same situation, they will get the same due consideration.

Again, the process is math....if one of the inputs is wrong, the outcome has to be as well. If the ITAC screwed up and created a non acheivable situation, then it needs to be looked at. Seems simple to me.

As for HP targets and asumptions, if the ITAC had reputable numbers for every car listed, we wouldn&#39;t need estimations. But where we DO have reputable numbers, we give them consideration. Where we do use estimations, those estimations are based on the type and properties of the engine in question. Any "across the board estimates" won&#39;t cut it.

This isn&#39;t model specific, per se, but is more related to general characteristics of the case in question. Certain manufacturers can run afoul of such a process though, as the base process assumes certain "averages". "Average exhaust manifolds", for example....if the car comes from the factory optimized in this area, as some manufacturers do, then the process will fail them as it assumes gians from this key area. While it might seem a like model specific "adjustment". it&#39;s not, as any case with optimized layouts would be given the same consideration.

And as for the "No guaranteed competitveness" clause, how COULD there be any guarantee of competiveness?? We&#39;d be FOOLs to guarantee such a thing.

But it doesn&#39;t mean we can&#39;t TRY to do a good job where we know the numbers and the issue.

[Banzai240]

Add to that, the S944 guys can remove more stuff. (Lighter batteries, heater core and blower motor)

[/b]

Just a simple question... If the Spec 944 rules allow more things to be removed... what are the chances that these guys would actually try to gather all these things back up, replace their "safer" lower control arms with stock, IT-legal control arms, etc., to make these cars IT legal again and go race against Neons, Integras, and Sentras in ITA??? How many ITA/ITS legal 944s are really out there to bring into the SCCA?

The questions around classifying this car are based on HP figures given from ONE SINGLE engine builder, who supposedly builds the "best" Porsche engines for the 944... a big 2-valve, 2.5L, oversquare motor with good torque and RPMs, in a chassis that is 50/50 from the factory with HUGE brakes, and excellent handling... good aero too... Supposedly "cam" limited... (what IT car ISN&#39;T "cam-limited"???)

If this car isn&#39;t competitive in ITS currently, it&#39;s for one of a several reasons... Either no one has given one a full-tilt effort... or one who has given a full-tilt prep effort can&#39;t drive full-tilt... or the top of ITS is still too high up there and needs further adjustment to bring it back in line...

Maybe it&#39;s an East-Coast thing, because here on the West Coast, at thier OLD 2715lbs weight, they weren&#39;t that far off the mark of a Rebello or Top-Tech powered, full-tilt, well-driven 240Z...

[Joe Harlan]

The ITAC would love to hear about these cars and see the math. If they are in the same situation, they will get the same due consideration.

Again, the process is math....if one of the inputs is wrong, the outcome has to be as well. If the ITAC screwed up and created a non acheivable situation, then it needs to be looked at. Seems simple to me.

But it doesn&#39;t mean we can&#39;t TRY to do a good job where we know the numbers and the issue.
[/b].

BS Jake, there is a presumpttion of the value of certain adders and subtractors that is completely subjective by the folks that are doing the classing. While I trust that to a certain extent I don&#39;t trust it when you try to refine the classes down to a knats ass which is what is happening if you think moving a competitive ITS car to ITA is doing the right thing. Maybe it is the right thing if you are trying to shuffle the whole group downword over a period of time.

[lateapex911]

.

BS Jake, there is a presumpttion of the value of certain adders and subtractors that is completely subjective by the folks that are doing the classing. While I trust that to a certain extent I don&#39;t trust it when you try to refine the classes down to a knats ass which is what is happening if you think moving a competitive ITS car to ITA is doing the right thing. Maybe it is the right thing if you are trying to shuffle the whole group downword over a period of time.


[/b]

No, there is no conspiracy here.

It&#39;s merely a case of determining if one of the inputs to the process was incorrect. If it was, then it needs to be adressed, it wasn&#39;t then there&#39;s no smoking gun.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The questions around classifying this car are based on HP figures given from ONE SINGLE engine builder, who supposedly builds the "best" Porsche engines for the 944... a big 2-valve, 2.5L, oversquare motor with good torque and RPMs, in a chassis that is 50/50 from the factory with HUGE brakes, and excellent handling... good aero too... Supposedly "cam" limited... (what IT car ISN&#39;T "cam-limited"???)

[/b] Because all of the best of breed 944&#39;s seem to use him as a builder and their complaints about power back up his claims of crank peaks.


If this car isn&#39;t competitive in ITS currently, it&#39;s for one of a several reasons... Either no one has given one a full-tilt effort... or one who has given a full-tilt prep effort can&#39;t drive full-tilt... or the top of ITS is still too high up there and needs further adjustment to bring it back in line...[/b]

Who cares about competitivness? All we want are cars that fit into the performance envelope they are designated for.


Maybe it&#39;s an East-Coast thing, because here on the West Coast, at thier OLD 2715lbs weight, they weren&#39;t that far off the mark of a Rebello or Top-Tech powered, full-tilt, well-driven 240Z... [/b]

Maybe if the PNW had more than 3 cars in ITS, you might have a proper sample. I checked MYLAPS up there and Greg F. hasn&#39;t run against more than 2 cars all year...unless I missed something.


.

BS Jake, there is a presumpttion of the value of certain adders and subtractors that is completely subjective by the folks that are doing the classing. While I trust that to a certain extent I don&#39;t trust it when you try to refine the classes down to a knats ass which is what is happening if you think moving a competitive ITS car to ITA is doing the right thing. Maybe it is the right thing if you are trying to shuffle the whole group downword over a period of time.


[/b]

Why do we have to keep saying that it isn&#39;t about competitiveness? If we WERE to talk about results, I am 100% sure your view is sku&#39;d buy the limited sample size you have up there. There isn&#39;t one 944 8V winning races in a decent sized field that I can think of anywhere in the country. Please correct me if I am wrong...

But AGAIN, it&#39;s about whether or not this can can make 2575. If it can, it should stay in ITS, if it can&#39;t, then ITA at a new process weight should be considered...<insert broken record sound>

[Banzai240]

<insert broken record sound>
[/b]

Perhaps the "broken record" you seem to be hearing is because I haven&#39;t changed my story, data, or facts about this issue in over 3-years of debate on the subject... I know what I&#39;m talking about here...

If you guys are using "My Laps" as your "sample"... then you aren&#39;t getting all the facts.... That system has only been in service for a couple of seasons, and doesn&#39;t tell the whole story... There are local "Conference" level clubs that run the same IT rules as the SCCA, etc...

You guys are running the show, but moving this car, or any others like it, to ITA is WRONG and will upset the balance that was just starting to form in that class...

Good Luck...

[Fastfred92]

There isn&#39;t one 944 8V winning races in a decent sized field that I can think of anywhere in the country. Please correct me if I am wrong...
But AGAIN, it&#39;s about whether or not this can can make 2575. If it can, it should stay in ITS, if it can&#39;t, then ITA at a new process weight should be considered[/b]

Not only are they not winning ITS races you will not find where one has won ITA either ( timewise ) at todays listed weight..........

Joe I am telling you the weight is not possible because I have built one of these cars personally and at a high level of prep based on the rules 5 years ago. I could not make 2715 but I admit at 6&#39;4" / 250 I have some built in disadvantage( make me 180 and I was still more than 75 lbs off). This car belongs in ITA at the correct process weight ( my math has it around 2800 - 2850 )

[Joe Harlan]

Because all of the best of breed 944&#39;s seem to use him as a builder and their complaints about power back up his claims of crank peaks.
Who cares about competitivness? All we want are cars that fit into the performance envelope they are designated for.



Maybe if the PNW had more than 3 cars in ITS, you might have a proper sample. I checked MYLAPS up there and Greg F. hasn&#39;t run against more than 2 cars all year...unless I missed something.



Why do we have to keep saying that it isn&#39;t about competitiveness? If we WERE to talk about results, I am 100% sure your view is sku&#39;d buy the limited sample size you have up there. There isn&#39;t one 944 8V winning races in a decent sized field that I can think of anywhere in the country. Please correct me if I am wrong...

But AGAIN, it&#39;s about whether or not this can can make 2575. If it can, it should stay in ITS, if it can&#39;t, then ITA at a new process weight should be considered...<insert broken record sound>
[/b]

Well Andy, I e-mailed Greg Fordahl and he gave me his information. I will put Greg&#39;s prep level and driving ability up against anyone. He say early chassis no problem to make weight late chassis will be really tough. He has seen 156RWHP on his best build. He states His brake and handling are what make the car work and the lighter weight will be a huge benefit. Please don&#39;t tell me my data samples are any worse than yours to start with you are not looking for results in the right places as we have to different sanctioning bodies out here and most of them run ICSCC.


Fred Based on the information from Fordahl maybe your usoing the wrong tub? I am sure you know Greg&#39;s history and I don&#39;t hink you will find a better Porsche builder in to many places. He has done his homework and is confident the early car can get there. His RWHP numbers would indicate that the car can make enoough HP at 2600 lbs to be an S car with its handling and brakes. Sorry man but handing out ITA championships is not right. I go about 240 and I figured out how to in with a heavy car......I only race on tracks that are counter clockwise. :birra:

[latebrake]

my ep 944 weighed in at 2525# with 204# driver. thats 2321#. it had a 12 cell with hollow sway bars and hollow t bars. glass fenders and lexan all around. 10 # fire bottle and accusump no alternator or fan and no balance shafts. everything on the car did something. i worked a very long time with the undercoating. hated that part so bad i sold the car afterward :( just kidding but i just may have on any given day under the car. i dip the next one or just skip it.

Lawrence

[lateapex911]

Well Andy, I e-mailed Greg Fordahl and he gave me his information. I will put Greg&#39;s prep level and driving ability up against anyone. He say early chassis no problem to make weight late chassis will be really tough. He has seen 156RWHP on his best build. [/b]

Well, that makes TWO guys at the exact same number.

And while the brakes are big, there are plenty of cars in S, A, B and yes, C with as large or larger. (And that power already exists in A as well..but about 200+ pounds lower)

Again, if the car can&#39;t hit the weight target, we (the ITAC) screwed up.

[Joe Harlan]

Well, that makes TWO guys at the exact same number.

And while the brakes are big, there are plenty of cars in S, A, B and yes, C with as large or larger. (And that power already exists in A as well..but about 200+ pounds lower)

Again, if the car can&#39;t hit the weight target, we (the ITAC) screwed up.
[/b]

YOu know Jake you would be alot more convincing if you came across like you were listening instead of having to be right. I gave actual data from a qualified source. The transaxel in that thing is more likely to see 20% losses but since the transaxel is well placed providing with more than optimum weight balance it counters any looses it may provide by a long shot. The fact is at 189 HP with excellent brakes and handling this thing should add up to about 2600 lbs to start with. Wasn&#39;t the car an S car at 2700+ not to long ago?


You guys have at it. You have given me enough data to provide in my letters against this deal. Screwing the balance of the ITA cars would be just wrong. If guys are to lazy to get the cars under 2700 lbs then when you reclass to 2800lbs they are only getting 100lb weight gain not 325. 100 lbs will not slow them down at all once they have it moving.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The only data point you have given that has any relevance is Greg&#39;s info. You have supported the Milledge power numbers and provided a data point on the weight. THAT is productive.

Do you find it at all interesting that the two guys on the ITAC here who would be in support of the move (should it be warranted) BOTH run cars in ITA? The process is the process. Live by it, die by it...

BTW: It&#39;s tough to use sample data from another sanctioning body as we can&#39;t be expected to be experts in others rule sets. Get Greg to the ARRC or the Mid-Ohio IT festival in the 944 and we will all see first hand the data you are using. I Solo&#39;d for years with Greg around and he is top-notch...actually trying to grab a spot on the ITAC for him but haven&#39;t seen his letter....

[Fastfred92]

Sorry man but handing out ITA championships is not right. I go about 240 and I figured out how to in with a heavy car......I only race on tracks that are counter clockwise. :birra:
[/b]


I am fast as hell at lowes and daytona but most everwhere else we run clockwise, bastards :)


Look Joe / Darin, if the board makes this change there will be no change in the pointed end of the ITA fields, the 944 can&#39;t keep up with the top ITA cars now, what is going to change by adding a couple hundred pounds to them???

[Joe Harlan]

The only data point you have given that has any relevance is Greg&#39;s info. You have supported the Milledge power numbers and provided a data point on the weight. THAT is productive.

Do you find it at all interesting that the two guys on the ITAC here who would be in support of the move (should it be warranted) BOTH run cars in ITA? The process is the process. Live by it, die by it...

BTW: It&#39;s tough to use sample data from another sanctioning body as we can&#39;t be expected to be experts in others rule sets. Get Greg to the ARRC or the Mid-Ohio IT festival in the 944 and we will all see first hand the data you are using. I Solo&#39;d for years with Greg around and he is top-notch...actually trying to grab a spot on the ITAC for him but haven&#39;t seen his letter....
[/b]

Which I still believe can be better and will discuss how with Greg whenn he returns. and Gregs numbers a few HP higher depending on what you use for drive losses. I don&#39;t find it interesting that the two of you drive ITA cars. There has never been a question of either of yours integrity and I defended it hard over the SIR deal if you remember right. As I stated many posts ago I can disagree with anyone and still respect what they think. I will continue to look at data. I am in the procees of trying to find a 944 to scale and dyno even if I have to buy one.....may be a market for a TopTech exhaust system if it makes power and is light.

[JeffYoung]

One sidelight here.

So, it looks like even the proponents of the move would agree the 944 can get within 75 lbs of the process weight.

Is there some point at which close enough is sufficient to justify leaving teh car in S? While perhaps irrelevant to teh process analysis, I would suggest that in my experience 75 lbs does not the difference between 1st and 2nd place make. Several championship winning cars in the SEDiv are close to that over their minimum weight.

[Team SSR]

There is certainly a difference in being 75lbs. overweight with ballast or decent corner weights and being 75lbs. overweight because that&#39;s as light as you cen get it and you end up with a nose heavy/left side heavy car. So that may not be quite as simple of a comparison as it appears.

[Andy Bettencourt]

One sidelight here.

So, it looks like even the proponents of the move would agree the 944 can get within 75 lbs of the process weight.

Is there some point at which close enough is sufficient to justify leaving teh car in S? While perhaps irrelevant to teh process analysis, I would suggest that in my experience 75 lbs does not the difference between 1st and 2nd place make. Several championship winning cars in the SEDiv are close to that over their minimum weight. [/b]

Yes Jeff. That is what the ITAC CRB will wrestle with. Thisis part of the subjective part that I don&#39;t like but we do have to be practical. If the early chassis can get within 25lbs or so, do we move it? Do we &#39;risk&#39; ITA? Remember, back when we did the big &#39;correction&#39; in Feb or 06, cars were changed who were outside of 100lbs of the process - that was a lot more weight...

I guess the issue will come down to &#39;how close is close enough&#39; - and that will affect our recommendation.

[Fastfred92]

Do we &#39;risk&#39; ITA? Remember, back when we did the big &#39;correction&#39; in Feb or 06, cars were changed who were outside of 100lbs of the process - that was a lot more weight...
[/b]


Andy, how does this "risk" ITA? Again I doubt you will not find any year 944 with legal prep that is within 25 lbs of 2575 and I know no 85.5 up car can get within 100.... Are all 944&#39;s on the same spec line? Please explaine to me ( anybody ) how this would damage ITA other than an increase in entries?????

[erlrich]

Andy, one other thing I would consider when discussing this with the ITAC and CRB; are we really ready to bump the performance envelope in ITA up a notch? IIRC in past threads it was stated that the informal "cap" on ITA HP was 170-175; now we&#39;re talking about putting a 185-190 HP car in A? And yes, I understand that the reasoning for this move centers around the weight issue, but if you&#39;re going to seriously discuss a move like this you need to consider all of the implications it would have. And if you are willing to bump the performance envelope up, then how are you going to be able to justify moving brand A&#39;s 190 HP car into ITA but not brand B&#39;s?

When I first started reading this thread the solution seemed like a no-brainer; if the car can&#39;t make its minimum weight then move it down a class. After reading all the arguments and re-thinking the issue, I&#39;m pretty sure I believe this would be a bad idea. Yes it sucks that the car can&#39;t make its minimum weight (if that really is the case?), but is this the only car in IT that can&#39;t make weight? Hell, I don&#39;t know of anyone with an ITA 240SX hatchback who is down to min. weight; maybe we should consider moving this car to B?

Just some more food for thought.

[Greg Amy]

When I first started reading this thread the solution seemed like a no-brainer; if the car can&#39;t make its minimum weight then move it down a class. After reading all the arguments and re-thinking the issue, I&#39;m pretty sure I believe this would be a bad idea.[/b]

Same here.

Moving a car to another class is not a finesse item, it&#39;s a correction of a gross misclassification. Seems like since we&#39;re splitting hairs here, it&#39;s probably not a good idea...

Besides, take the macro view: ITS is a big-engine rear-wheel-drive grand sports sedan and sports car class (with notable exceptions), whereas ITA is a 4-cylinder front-wheel-drive econo-car-based class (wtih notable exceptions.) Given this, where does one honestly suggest the Porsche 944 belongs...?

Greg, opinion known and now signing off this discussion, given the significant perception of conflicts of interest...

[Andy Bettencourt]

First to Fred - I put risk in quotes when I wrote that statement. Whenever there is a change, there is a risk it could be a mistake. I don&#39;t think this is one, because I believe the process works, but there is a &#39;risk&#39;. I am a firm believer that reward must always outweight risk for a change to be made.

Earl,

I don&#39;t see this as raising the envelope of ITA at all. Others like Joe disagree. If the car is to weigh what it needs to in order to fit the hp/weight targets and then has weight added to compensated for it&#39;s &#39;strengths&#39; like RWD, brakes, torque etc - then how is the bar raised?

Again, this is about a car that POTENTIALLY can&#39;t make weight. THAT is how we justify it. I believe that every car in IT ought to at least have the chance to make the minimum we tell then they should be at to theoretically &#39;compete&#39; for a piece for wood.

I am sure there are other cars that can&#39;t make weight - but it is impossible for us to know them all. This came up because someone wrote a letter and expained an issue. We have 240SX hatches here in NER that have to add ballast to get to 2630. Besides, there is no way we would differentiate between TRIM levels...

[Fastfred92]

IIRC in past threads it was stated that the informal "cap" on ITA HP was 170-175; now we&#39;re talking about putting a 185-190 HP car in A?
[/b]

It has nothing to do with total HP and everything to do with HP/weight ratio........

[lateapex911]

Andy, one other thing I would consider when discussing this with the ITAC and CRB; are we really ready to bump the performance envelope in ITA up a notch? IIRC in past threads it was stated that the informal "cap" on ITA HP was 170-175; now we&#39;re talking about putting a 185-190 HP car in A?..... And if you are willing to bump the performance envelope up, then how are you going to be able to justify moving brand A&#39;s 190 HP car into ITA but not brand B&#39;s?

[/b]

But brand N already is making that power in ITA (150 mid at the wheels, high 180s at the crank)....and at a significanly lower weight. And, it hasn&#39;t upset the apple cart yet,even after years of chances.

(Keep in mind guys that I drive a car,,,in ITA, that has, in many cases LESS than 100 ft lbs of tq, and under 130 wheel power, and is next to impossible to make weight, often at the expense of balance.)

Point is, that ech car should be discussed on it&#39;s merits, or lack thereof.

[Joe Harlan]

It has nothing to do with total HP and everything to do with HP/weight ratio........
[/b]
Fred it has everything to do with total HP and displacement. Other wise we could put a 350Z into ITA at the correct weight( which would be cool cause you and I would get to add ballast for the first time since I was 20) It also has to be considered how a car makes its lap times and the other things that make it competitve.

I car with perfect weight distribution decent HP and top level brakes. The early car look like they can make weight. That make them the same as the 240sx in ITS. Early car and 4 lug cars can likely make weight and 5 lug and late tub most likely won&#39;t. I guess that puts a premium on the early cars for both models. I have stated it before that if the ITA 240 SX did not have to run the stock MAF it would be an ITS car tomorrow because its base HP number would increase enough to put it there.
The Hatch model 240sx can make the new weight since adjustment but it could not make the 2530 number before.

[erlrich]

I don&#39;t see this as raising the envelope of ITA at all. Others like Joe disagree. If the car is to weigh what it needs to in order to fit the hp/weight targets and then has weight added to compensated for it&#39;s &#39;strengths&#39; like RWD, brakes, torque etc - then how is the bar raised?
[/b] I really think it depends on how you look at it, which is ultimately what this discussion all comes down to anyway, right? If you look at the result of "the process" as the envelope, then you can NEVER raise the bar. You can make an M3 fit into ITC if you run it through the process, right? And yes, I know that&#39;s a silly extreme (as was my comment about the 240SX moving to B; that was meant to be another example of the absurd), but the point is that the process is simply a formula (albeit with some subjective modification), and any formula can yield the desired result if you manipulate the variables enough. The question then is, do we want there to be limits on the variables? In this case we&#39;re talking about HP and weight, right? So, do we put limits on HP and/or weight for each class, or just allow one to offset the other without limiting either (within reason of course)?

Edit: dammit Joe, you were reading off my paper, weren&#39;t you :)


I believe that every car in IT ought to at least have the chance to make the minimum we tell then they should be at to theoretically &#39;compete&#39; for a piece for wood.
[/b] Careful Andy... the RX7 guys are gonna see this and then all hell is gonna break loose :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fred it has everything to do with total HP and displacement. Other wise we could put a 350Z into ITA at the correct weight( which would be cool cause you and I would get to add ballast for the first time since I was 20) It also has to be considered how a car makes its lap times and the other things that make it competitve. [/b]

So how WOULD a 5500lb 350Z make it&#39;s laps? THAT is the weight it would have to be in ITA to fit the process. I don&#39;t think that would get around the track very well. Certainly not faster than ITA now.

I realize that it is a crazy example but when is weight not enough?

[Fastfred92]

Again Earl, Joe et al...........


WHERE ARE 944&#39;s CURRENTLY OUTRUNNING THE FAST ITA CARS AT TODAYS LOWER WEIGHTS????


I know we don&#39;t use ontrack data but jeez, be reasonable with all this talk of blowing up ITA with evil 944&#39;s

[Knestis]

Even though they might not be, Fred it&#39;s just too possible that nobody fast has been motivated to build a really good one - given the perception/conviction/whatever that it&#39;s not ever going to be a good ITS car. We just can&#39;t use that information reliably, regardless of our philosophical positions to competition adjustments (bleah).

K

[Fastfred92]

Even though they might not be, Fred it&#39;s just too possible that nobody fast has been motivated to build a really good one - given the perception/conviction/whatever that it&#39;s not ever going to be a good ITS car.

K
[/b]

Telling isn&#39;t it....


I guess that is why my old car toils around the Porsche Club

[erlrich]

I know we don&#39;t use ontrack data but jeez, be reasonable with all this talk of blowing up ITA with evil 944&#39;s [/b] Fred - I&#39;m sorry if it comes across that way, but my reservations have nothing to do with the fear that the 944 is going to "blow up" ITA. I don&#39;t know if it would or wouldn&#39;t, but quite honestly that was never a consideration when I was commenting. What my concerns are, and they may or may not be valid, is that we are 1) making an exception for one car based on inadequate or insufficient information; 2) changing the basis with which we class future cars (or re-class current ones) because of the desire to see one car be competitive; 3) applying "the process" to cars based on a desired outcome; and at the extreme 4) allowing the system to be manipulated by a limited number of sources with vested interests. Not accusations, just concerns. And I may be totally wrong; it wouldn&#39;t be the first time.

[Joe Harlan]

Let me say this Fred, If the ITAc had ended up at 2615 instead of 2575 then this would be a none issue cause the cars could make 2615 with out question. The reality is that&#39;s in mind mind were the process should have them because I am concerned that the process used didn&#39;t account for the perfect balance in these cars enough. To Your point about cars beating ITA cars at the current weight they are beating lots of ITA cars they just aren&#39;t killling the pointy end pf ITA but they would as soon as they are classed where they would be an overdog. I will say again There has not been a fully developed car presented yet to prove that statement one way or another. I asked the questions of a Porsche Prep Shop and very excellent driver and gave actual data of what he said so working for my case some working against. I have to say this also. Greg builds Porsches I build Nissans If greg thought he could give me bad information to work against me he wouldn&#39;t cause like me it&#39;s about the fairness of the classification and competition.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fred - I&#39;m sorry if it comes across that way, but my reservations have nothing to do with the fear that the 944 is going to "blow up" ITA. I don&#39;t know if it would or wouldn&#39;t, but quite honestly that was never a consideration when I was commenting. What my concerns are, and they may or may not be valid, is that we are 1) making an exception for one car based on inadequate or insufficient information; 2) changing the basis with which we class future cars (or re-class current ones) because of the desire to see one car be competitive; 3) applying "the process" to cars based on a desired outcome; and at the extreme 4) allowing the system to be manipulated by a limited number of sources with vested interests. Not accusations, just concerns. And I may be totally wrong; it wouldn&#39;t be the first time. [/b]

Earl,

All your concerns are valid. It&#39;s ok to be skeptical.

1. No. We are looking into a change based on member input. This is awarded to all SCCA members. We gather as much information as we can, and then (the ITAC) makes a recommendation to the CRB. They in turn make the decision.

2. We have no desire for any one car or marque to be competitive in IT. It would be &#39;nice&#39; if a wide variety was represented so that the category as a whole appeals to a broad demographic but there is no sense of individual targets. The process has not changed in it&#39;s fundimentaility since it&#39;s inception.

3. There are no desired outcomes.

4. The process is pretty fixed and reviewed by a 7 member ITAC and the entire CRB. With no outside influences like manufactures or contingency, it is not hard to keep issues at bay.

As always, I encourage people to contact me offline to get as much info as they want!

[Fastfred92]

To Your point about cars beating ITA cars at the current weight they are beating lots of ITA cars they just aren&#39;t killling the pointy end pf ITA but they would as soon as they are classed where they would be an overdog. [/b]

Joe I know I will never convince you but I have a hard time following your logic here. No 944 that I can find has beaten the top guys in ITA ( same track, same time, competitive field etc. ) so I don&#39;t see how you feel that by adding 250+ lbs to the car is going to: a) be faster than now and B) entice top guys to build them? I would like to see us stop losing cars to other groups and if you had personally built one of these cars before ( as I have ) you would know that it will not make weight. Nobody with a 944 in NASA or whatever is going spend money and time making it SCCA legal when they know they can&#39;t even make weight.

I don&#39;t know Fordal but as a member of PCA myself I certainly respect what he does from what I read about him ( and his wife too I think )

[924Guy]

To Your point about cars beating ITA cars at the current weight they are beating lots of ITA cars they just aren&#39;t killling the pointy end pf ITA but they would as soon as they are classed where they would be an overdog.[/b]

That&#39;s hardly a conclusive statement - I can whip a lot of ITA cars in my ITB car!!! Do you think it still belongs in ITA???

I can beat ITS cars too... :o

[lateapex911]

In some ways, this is getting funny.

Facts: Results don&#39;t matter, but it&#39;s not like 944s are out there beating the top ITA cars....heck, even a well prepped 944S at Road Atlanta would have run 3rd in ITA.

Fact...lots of 944 guys who have built the cars say it can&#39;t make weight, and show their numbers. But others, who have NEVER built a 944 say they can make weight, but can&#39;t provide the math to show how it can actually be done.

Fact, ITA ALREADY has cars with the exact same power.

Fact, We have two top builders come up with the same number, but yet we&#39;re being told. "Yeah, well there might be more someday, you never know..."

I&#39;m actually amazed the 944 guys here haven&#39;t said, "Huh???? 2850!?!?!? Are you guys NUTS?? We&#39;ll get creamed...leave us in ITS..."

(And this from a guy who needs another decent ITA car like a hole in his head, LOL)

[Joe Harlan]

Joe I know I will never convince you but I have a hard time following your logic here. No 944 that I can find has beaten the top guys in ITA ( same track, same time, competitive field etc. ) so I don&#39;t see how you feel that by adding 250+ lbs to the car is going to: a) be faster than now and B) entice top guys to build them? I would like to see us stop losing cars to other groups and if you had personally built one of these cars before ( as I have ) you would know that it will not make weight. Nobody with a 944 in NASA or whatever is going spend money and time making it SCCA legal when they know they can&#39;t even make weight.

I don&#39;t know Fordal but as a member of PCA myself I certainly respect what he does from what I read about him ( and his wife too I think )
[/b]
Fred, you won&#39;t be adding 250lbs. the folks that have not done the work are coming at what 2750? so in real life they will only be adding 50 to 100 lbs. And when somebody actaully does the work they will be lightened and ballasted to the max, Now that car that is 50/50 is 45/55 and can do things no other ITA car can do. Your correct your not likely to convince me because 190HP and perfect balance doesn&#39;t fit the perfomance envelope of ITA.

[Fastfred92]

I&#39;m actually amazed the 944 guys here haven&#39;t said, "Huh???? 2850!?!?!? Are you guys NUTS?? We&#39;ll get creamed...leave us in ITS..."
[/b]


My only take on that would be if I were to build another 944 I would take the option of building a car that CAN make weight and thus would fit the process for that class and still lose vs. bulding a car that would never make weight ( or fit the process b/c it is too heavy ) and still lose.... Either way Jake you get creamed :(

[m33mcg]

After posting this question, I have been setting back and following the posts trying to make sense of it all, trying to keep an open mind. :014: The reason I posted this question is because I am building an 83-85 944NA and wanted to know which Club/Association rules I should build it for??? I build and fabricate all of my cars and customers cars to the limit of the rules. Living in Topeka, Kansas I don’t think spec944 and/ or NASA is going to be an option (would love to see it), but will travel to Colorado to run with them on occasions. With all that being said I wish now I would have stayed with the RX3 or RX7. Why waste my time and money on car (tweeter) that will not make min. weight and or be competitive in ITS and maybe not in ITA. I spent 2 hrs searching times on mylaps and divisional postings. :024: Why? Because it tells me how competitive a car group is doing and who are the drivers. A good driver like a good horse trader can make a donkey perform like thoroughbred :cavallo: . You are going to have outstanding drivers in all class and in any form of racing, but we (racers) show up to the tract and we would like to think mechanically we are playing on a somewhat level playing field. I or we (racers) are very competitive people and like to show up at the tract thinking we have a chance to win or set our goals to race with the “Greg Amy”. :smilie_pokal: I don’t show up hoping to run mid pack against a slower group. If I wanted to joy ride on a track I would ask to drive the pace car or get in the mini van and joy ride on the interstate. :eclipsee_steering: To bad that doesn’t fill my competitive nature it would be a lot cheaper. The 924 is competitive in ITB the 944S should be competitive (needs a weight reduction. Lose 100pds) in ITS and the 944S2 should also be competitive in ITR that leaves the 944 in ITA.

After reading all the post and then sorting out those, who I believe, have there own personal agendas and those who really believe in the system. As I said before it would be a shame to see only a small group of car manufactures racing competitive on the track (Mazda of SCCA). I do believe that the 944 and ANY car that falls between the cracks should have a duel classification. This way people will build these cars and if and when they started to become the overdog then make the adjustments. This allows the driver who starts dominating in his class to move up or the CRB the information/statistics to make adjustments as needed.

I have heard the statement that the 944 has a 50/50 balance. I find this funny, every race car after it is built, scaled and adjusted should be close to that anyway, If not, fire the builder or crew chief.

I hope we can get the 944 moved to ITA that way I can build a light weight car add ballast and still make a competitive weight (I am 6’3” 253 pounds and need all the help I can). That’s my personal agenda. If it doesn’t happen I guess I will have to sale the car and build something else and be everyone else. Maybe I will paint it red. :OLA:

[Andy Bettencourt]

After posting this question, I have been setting back and following the posts trying to make sense of it all, trying to keep an open mind. :014: The reason I posted this question is because I am building an 83-85 944NA and wanted to know which Club/Association rules I should build it for??? I build and fabricate all of my cars and customers cars to the limit of the rules. Living in Topeka, Kansas I don&#39;t think spec944 and/ or NASA is going to be an option (would love to see it), but will travel to Colorado to run with them on occasions. With all that being said I wish now I would have stayed with the RX3 or RX7. Why waste my time and money on car (tweeter) that will not make min. weight and or be competitive in ITS and maybe not in ITA.[/b]

Well, you sure will get opinions here. Glad you came. It has spawed a philisophical debate as well as the practical one. Now we have some data that says the early car (like one you are building) can get right on top of minimum weight - understanding a 180lb driver. Now knowing that tight tolerance, this car may not be perfect for a guy your size. Same issues happen in Spec Miata. bigger guys tend to migrate toward the 1.8 cars because they make weight much easier.




I spent 2 hrs searching times on mylaps and divisional postings. :024: Why? Because it tells me how competitive a car group is doing and who are the drivers. A good driver like a good horse trader can make a donkey perform like thoroughbred :cavallo: . You are going to have outstanding drivers in all class and in any form of racing, but we (racers) show up to the tract and we would like to think mechanically we are playing on a somewhat level playing field. I or we (racers) are very competitive people and like to show up at the tract thinking we have a chance to win or set our goals to race with the "Greg Amy". :smilie_pokal: I don&#39;t show up hoping to run mid pack against a slower group. If I wanted to joy ride on a track I would ask to drive the pace car or get in the mini van and joy ride on the interstate. :eclipsee_steering: To bad that doesn&#39;t fill my competitive nature it would be a lot cheaper. The 924 is competitive in ITB the 944S should be competitive (needs a weight reduction. Lose 100pds) in ITS and the 944S2 should also be competitive in ITR that leaves the 944 in ITA. [/b]

On-track results, as has been said, are not what you should be looking at as a PRIMARY source of info. There are so many variables that make up a race effort that we can&#39;t quantify it is impossible to use the data. For trending, maybe, but for pure solutions, no. The 944S is winning and winning frequently where well developed and well prepped cars are racing. It needs no weight reduction - it fits the process for ITS PERFECTLY.

You and I are in the same boat WRT the "Greg Amy&#39;s" of the world. My racing effort is built from the ground up with the goal to beat him. He, and others just like him, are in my Region.

After reading all the post and then sorting out those, who I believe, have there own personal agendas and those who really believe in the system. As I said before it would be a shame to see only a small group of car manufactures racing competitive on the track (Mazda of SCCA). [/b]

Here is where we seperate quickly. If you look very closely, the major opposition to the thought of moving the 944 8V to ITA is Joe Harlen. He has no dog in the fight. He is concerned about the integrity of ITA. The two loudest proponents of the concept are myself and Jake Gulick. Both members of the ITAC AND Mazda drivers in ITA. We look to the process and we believe in it. We understand that the cream will rise to the top in each class but as long as we abide by the fundamentals, that is the best IT will do for us. So in actuality, I see your perceived agendas as 180 degrees backwards.


I do believe that the 944 and ANY car that falls between the cracks should have a duel classification. This way people will build these cars and if and when they started to become the overdog then make the adjustments. This allows the driver who starts dominating in his class to move up or the CRB the information/statistics to make adjustments as needed.[/b]

But that is not how IT works. There are no little tweaks to the system. Perfomance Compensation Adjustment (PCA&#39;s) language is in the ITCS in order to fix a major problem in classing that is hurting a group. With the amount of info we have on this car, if it ran wild over ITA, it would almost have to get declassed from ITA and go back to ITS...the adjustment would become too subjective for IT - very much a standard Comp Adjustment ala Production.


I have heard the statement that the 944 has a 50/50 balance. I find this funny, every race car after it is built, scaled and adjusted should be close to that anyway, If not, fire the builder or crew chief. [/b]

Not in Improved Touring you didn&#39;t. The allowed modifications are just too limiting to correct a significant factory imbalance. Joe is talking 50-50 front to rear - and you have to be DAMN close to get there in IT legally.


I hope we can get the 944 moved to ITA that way I can build a light weight car add ballast and still make a competitive weight (I am 6&#39;3" 253 pounds and need all the help I can). That&#39;s my personal agenda. If it doesn&#39;t happen I guess I will have to sale the car and build something else and be everyone else. Maybe I will paint it red. :OLA:
[/b]

It would be a shame but it may be the best idea. How about an S2 for ITR?

[Fastfred92]

I agree that the 9448V is sort of a &#39;tweener&#39;. It&#39;s too light at 2575 for ITS. I couldn&#39;t have, even if I went on a 25lb diet (which I could use) made the car, with no fuel, weigh less than 2665, which is 90lbs heavy. So, as I said, you could set the weight at ANYTHING, and it wouldn&#39;t make any difference. And this was a car that was completely stripped to the bare body shell of all extra undercoating, etc.

[/b]

And I should point out that this from a guy everybody agrees preps cars to 100% and drives 10/10ths and I think JME builds his engines

[Joe Harlan]

And I should point out that this from a guy everybody agrees preps cars to 100% and drives 10/10ths and I think JME builds his engines
[/b]

NO slam here on anyone but Phone dial wheels I understand are about 22lbs each? I believe that 40lbs could be shaved off Chris&#39;s car in wheels alone. And if this is truely an 944S it is on the heavier chassis is it not?

Andy, Again I think you misrepressent my position a little bit. I think this car has not been given the time at the new weight to see enough competitive models built to truely determine the car can&#39;t make weight. The difference in the early and late cars is not exclusive to the 944.

[m33mcg]

[On-track results, as has been said, are not what you should be looking at as a PRIMARY source of info. There are so many variables that make up a race effort that we can&#39;t quantify it is impossible to use the data. For trending, maybe, but for pure solutions, no. ]

I know, but It helped me in my reseach and it should play some role. If 20 drivers say there is a pot hole in turn 1 that upset your car if you hit it, do you not use caution when you enter turn 1. I think it should also be looked out. You are right there are very many variables and all should be considered. There doesn&#39;t seem to be alot of data out there and if these cars are not on the track, them we have a catch 22. The "924 guy" (sorry I don&#39;t know his name) has give alot of good data. It is close to the information I got from other Porsche forums.

[Here is where we seperate quickly. If you look very closely, the major opposition to the thought of moving the 944 8V to ITA is Joe Harlen. He has no dog in the fight. He is concerned about the integrity of ITA. The two loudest proponents of the concept are myself and Jake Gulick. Both members of the ITAC AND Mazda drivers in ITA. We look to the process and we believe in it. We understand that the cream will rise to the top in each class but as long as we abide by the fundamentals, that is the best IT will do for us. So in actuality, I see your perceived agendas as 180 degrees backwards.]

I do also see some of Joe Harlen points too, but until real data and a few more cars on the track to better gather that data, once again catch 22. We have all the data needed for the mazdas (I like to pick on Mazda guys, I love zoom zoom it is a great car company that makes great cars), that why I used to run a RX3 in ITA. It had 10 more HP and was 100 pds lighter that the RX7, but they adjusted it or I would be building another.

[Not in Improved Touring you didn&#39;t. The allowed modifications are just too limiting to correct a significant factory imbalance. Joe is talking 50-50 front to rear - and you have to be DAMN close to get there in IT legally.]

If you are allowed to run coil overs and I think you can (have to reread rules) you should be able to get close to a 50/50 front to rear split. Chassis/ cage design also help in weight placement. I have used my weight to help improve chassis balance, you have to think outside the box.

Andy thanks for the feed back and keep up the good work. the S2 would be neat but they are getting hard to find. Will look at the mr2 (91-93) if it goes to ITA, RX7 2nd gen, or the BMW.

[Fastfred92]

Hey Andy,
Is Geroge still on the ITAC? Where does he weigh in on this subject? I know at one time he was building a 944 ( for a really long time ) what weights did his car come in at?

If, indeed, the ITAC agrees the 944 is a "tweener"; what harm is done by adding process weight and moving the car to ITA?

I have a personal concern about making weight on most any car ( my size and I have ran alot of SS cars ) and I am not sure yet how close my ITR e36 will be but I would rather err on the side of heavy to allow for a cage I feel is safe, larger fire system, center net, data etc, etc, When the ITAC can identify real tweeners they should consider dropping them a class with the correct new weight and if that includes Joe&#39;s Nissan then so be it..

My .02

[Greg Amy]

If you are allowed to run coil overs and I think you can (have to reread rules) you should be able to get close to a 50/50 front to rear split.[/b]

You are mistaken. Adjustable coilover suspension CANNOT correct front-to-rear and left-to-right weight balance, it can only correct deviations in diagonal corner weights.

My front-wheel-drive Nissan NX2000 has a ~62/38 F/R weight distribution, and that&#39;s after SIGNIFICANT dicking around with installed and fabricated equipment and some pretty clever "thinking outside the box". It&#39;ll never get any better.

Ergo, the rear-wheel-drive, nicely balanced Porsche 944 chassis starts with a significant handling advantage.


Will look at the mr2 (91-93) if it goes to ITA...[/b]
Look no further. It&#39;s already been approved in ITA and I&#39;ve got a project available for sale: http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=9958 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9958) I estmiate you can be on the track for ~$6,000.


If, indeed, the ITAC agrees the 944 is a "tweener"; what harm is done by adding process weight and moving the car to ITA?[/b]
That&#39;s pretty obvious, isn&#39;t it, Fred? The answer is, of course, "what if they&#39;re wrong?" and it really does upset the apple cart? We all know that it&#39;s virtually IMPOSSIBLE to un-do such mistakes, no less so than undoing any government social welfare program...

If you truly understand and believe in the process, and are not giving it lip service simply to get your car moved down to ITA where it would be more competitive, then you truly understand and believe that being within 50-75 poounds of the process weight is equivalent to being there. However, if you&#39;re asking to have your car moved because it can&#39;t get exactly down to that process weight, then I suggest it&#39;s more lip service than anything else...

It&#39;s time to take a break. The 944 has not yet been built to-the-hilt, taking advantage of the new weight, nor has it had a fair and to-the-hilt fight against the (100 pounds heavier - you obviously believe that&#39;s a pretty significant amount of weight) RX-7 without the presence of the BMW E36. I&#39;d suggest we let it ride and let the competition shake out now that the unrestricted E36 is out of the picture and running in ITR. There&#39;s not been consistently run "SpeedSource-quality" prepped 944 than I&#39;m aware of, and until that happens I see no value in moving the car. Fred implied that this was "telling", but that&#39;s a chicken-and-egg situation: has no one prepped the 944 because it can&#39;t compete, or can it not compete because no one prepped one? Hell, if I had to compete against the unrestricted E36s I&#39;d skip on building a 944 too! That car&#39;s gone; let&#39;s let the class shake out some more before we start moving cars around.

And as for not being able to make that last 75 pounds? That new weight&#39;s only 9 months old; how many people have actually been trying hard since March 2006?? Think harder. Try harder. Spend more money. There&#39;s nothing in the rules that says your car can get moved because that last 75 pounds is gonna be real expensive or tough to get. If you&#39;re out of ideas, come see us, we&#39;ll find it for you (bring your checkbook).

I&#39;m doing a mental comparison of the RX-7, the E46 BMW, and the Porsche 944; then doing the same thing with the Acura Integra, Honda CRX, Nissan NX2000, 240SX, and the Porsche 944.

The latter just seems so absurd... Yep, if I had a 944 I&#39;d want it in ITA, too...

Greg, deciding that he&#39;d obviously not be the only guy with a conflict-of-interest in this debate...

[lateapex911]

....... the S2 would be neat but they are getting hard to find. .............
[/b]


Not hard at all...I can walk out my door and trip over one. ;) It&#39;s a perect candidate...lots of key replacements, just add a cage, LOL. And I am selling it. Too much to do to the house at this time...no time or $ for a car project.

[924Guy]

NO slam here on anyone but Phone dial wheels I understand are about 22lbs each? I believe that 40lbs could be shaved off Chris&#39;s car in wheels alone. And if this is truely an 944S it is on the heavier chassis is it not?
[/b]
Sorry, wrong on both counts. 15x7 phonedials are more like 15 lbs - only a few heavier than the Fuchs.

Chris&#39;s quote clearly indicates that he&#39;s talking about his (old) 8V; the 944S is a 16V car, and what he is now running, in my understanding. Not sure why this is still unclear.



Andy, Again I think you misrepressent my position a little bit. I think this car has not been given the time at the new weight to see enough competitive models built to truely determine the car can&#39;t make weight. The difference in the early and late cars is not exclusive to the 944.
[/b]

I do have to agree with this; I cannot help but wonder if just 1 year is sufficient to see results!

[lateapex911]

Well, if RACING results are what we&#39;re discussing or looking for, then no a year isn&#39;t enough I guess....but I HOPE we&#39;re not looking for racing results. If we&#39;re talking about people BUILDING to the new weight, well, there might not EVER be enough time if the perception among those who have or are considering the car is that there&#39;s no way to make the weight.

Besides, it&#39;s just math....if a known great builder took a crack, did a full strip, and came up well short, (and even if he left some items on the table that we know of, thats easy math) thats a solid data point. Should we wait until three guys do that? Will three guys ever do that after hearing about the first guy?

[Fastfred92]

If you truly understand and believe in the process, and are not giving it lip service simply to get your car moved down to ITA where it would be more competitive, then you truly understand and believe that being within 50-75 poounds of the process weight is equivalent to being there. However, if you&#39;re asking to have your car moved because it can&#39;t get exactly down to that process weight, then I suggest it&#39;s more lip service than anything else...

I&#39;m doing a mental comparison of the RX-7, the E46 BMW, and the Porsche 944; then doing the same thing with the Acura Integra, Honda CRX, Nissan NX2000, 240SX, and the Porsche 944.

The latter just seems so absurd... Yep, if I had a 944 I&#39;d want it in ITA, too...

Greg, deciding that he&#39;d obviously not be the only conflict-of-interest person in this debate...
[/b]

First Greg, I am not building a 944 ( been down that road before ) so no dog in this fight but I do know what the cars weigh and how far off I was at even the old ITS weight.

Second my mental comparison tells me that yours is assuming that no 944 has been built out 100% but the RX7, e46, 240z etc have all been built 100%. I think you will find that even at the ARRC the range of prep level is significant so I think on track we are seeing what cars will do. I don&#39;t see many 944&#39;s that can keep up with the mid pack ITA guys at say the ARRC, much less the fast guys like you. Tack 200 - 300 lbs and I am pretty sure no apple carts are being bothered.

The Acura and 240sx make almost the same HP #&#39;s as the 944 at less weight, the CRX at much less weight make massive HP over its factory rating in IT trim and I got a hunch the lone NX2000 does not do too bad either. At 2850 with the underachieving motor and factory T bar suspension this car fits right in. Your ARRC reign is not in jeopardy!

Belated congrats by the way

[Banzai240]

The Acura and 240sx make almost the same HP #&#39;s as the 944 at less weight, [/b]

There is a BIG difference between 148 or so 1.8L Acura wHP, and 155 2.5L Porsche whp... a BIG difference...

The 240SX and the Porsche are much closer in comparison... and the 240SX would be an ITS car if it made just a few more stock HP... it&#39;s only 140hp from the factory (due to the MAF size/configuration), compared to 158 for the 944... If the 240 could use the S13 and later MAF, it&#39;d be an ITS car for sure... and the earlier car can actually make the weight...

[Fastfred92]

There is a BIG difference between 148 or so 1.8L Acura wHP, and 155 2.5L Porsche whp... a BIG difference...

The 240SX and the Porsche are much closer in comparison... and the 240SX would be an ITS car if it made just a few more stock HP... it&#39;s only 140hp from the factory (due to the MAF size/configuration), compared to 158 for the 944... If the 240 could use the S13 and later MAF, it&#39;d be an ITS car for sure... and the earlier car can actually make the weight...
[/b]

Darin, not to be disrespectful but even when taking into account the Acura fwd platform ( a really good one as fwd platforms go ) but I have a hard time seeing a really BIG difference in 7hp that has to haul 250 more lbs even when the torque is factored in......... I bet, by your answer, that the Nissan makes more hp than the 944?? I know you know Nissan&#39;s, How much hp does the ITA Nissan make? ( Darin or Joe )

[Joe Harlan]

Darin, not to be disrespectful but even when taking into account the Acura fwd platform ( a really good one as fwd platforms go ) but I have a hard time seeing a really BIG difference in 7hp that has to haul 250 more lbs even when the torque is factored in......... I bet, by your answer, that the Nissan makes more hp than the 944?? I know you know Nissan&#39;s, How much hp does the ITA Nissan make? ( Darin or Joe )
[/b]

Not as much as the low claimed numbers for the 944. I provided Dyno sheets to the ITac a couple of years ago so those folks know exactly.

And Fred please do not try to make the suspension on the 944 an issue cause your own credibility will become an issue then....I have raced against and driven these cars and they rock in terms of ability to change direction.

[Fastfred92]

And Fred please do not try to make the suspension on the 944 an issue cause your own credibility will become an issue then....I have raced against and driven these cars and they rock in terms of ability to change direction.
[/b]

Again, I have no dog in this fight Joe but I do have first hand knowledge of this car, thats all! I know that building any street car into a IT car provides obstacles and the suspension for a 944 is a bit more obstacle than a fwd car that has struts all around.... It is a hell of alot easier to corner weigh and setup a car with four coilovers and I can have 6 eibach springs in 25lb increments for every custom grind T bar. That is why Porsche went to coilovers for their 944 based race cars.. Obstacle, not a issue!