944 weight reduction, any results

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fastfred92]

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]

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'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't make weight. The difference in the early and late cars is not exclusive to the 944.

[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'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's quote clearly indicates that he'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'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!