Quote:
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.[/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.
Quote:
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. [/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'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'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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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'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.
Quote:
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'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.
Quote:
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:
[/b]
It would be a shame but it may be the best idea. How about an S2 for ITR?