944 weight reduction, any results

[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'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'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's not an issue - if you have a 60lb. driver it leaves 90 lbs. to get the corner weights pretty close.

[Joe Harlan]

It'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'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's and VW'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'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's and VW'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't make minmum weight without dipping....

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

Yeah well I don't smoke weed and I don'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's viability to make the minimum weight. If it can't, then it doesn'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'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's sales lit, from Edmund'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'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 'higher' 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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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't see that to be the case.

[Knestis]

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm beginning to see more merit in the idea (Dick'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'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's not an issue for the process to even care about.

We either trust the process or we don't. If there'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've submitted a request to get anothet such car (the '92-95 Civic DX) reviewed for a move from A - where it's listed at a nutso-low weight - to B. The argument (of Giles and others) seems to be that "it's not worth doing" if it's going to have to weigh 2400 to fit in the new class.

Andy'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'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'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't, I think they should be in different classes. If the 240SX can make it'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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's a better fit in ITR)

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

Also, it'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'll look at it on it's merits.
-"You'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's no good to move cars around if people don'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'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'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'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