944 weight reduction, any results

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Joe, you didn'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'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'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'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'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's ITS weight ).. The car can't legally meet it's process weight in ITS, it is as simple as that. Joe, if you have 944'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'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'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'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'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't reveal what he spent with Milledge on the motor and the Motec, as it'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'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'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'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'd have more of a challenge to win it.)

OK, that said, possibly moving the car to A isn'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'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'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'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'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'd like to hear for Chris. I'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't dispute that the 944 is a underdog in ITS, I do know Chris drives the car well at WGI. I'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'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'd like to see it moved to A, mind you, but I have confidence in the process. If it'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).

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 'real race car' than a New Beetle, but you get my point.

Kirk,

To your earlier comment re: dual-classification, we've already got it. In some cases it's codified in the ITCS (the ex-ITS cars now in ITR), and in other cases it's codified at the Regional (or Divisional) level (e.g. IT7). The first-gen RX7 folks were just lucky enough to have the 'critical mass' to pull it off. At this point in time, I'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'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'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'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'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't like the idea of comp. adjustments, you can't argue w/ the fact that setting the granularity level at make/model will produce the best 'curve fit' of the model (process, not car). If you're truly trying to equate the cars, that's where you have to go. That being said, I have no problem w/ the ITAC drawing the line and saying that they're not going to slice it that fine. As long as it's stated up front, I'm cool w/ that. We'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're moving in together. More often than not, they're breaking up after a year. Why? Because they were all caught up in how great their new relationship was, and didn't see how it all played out (you know, that 'cap-off-the toothpaste' and 'leaving the seat up' kind of stuff).


Anyway, I'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'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'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're not supposed to compare lap times, but I think they would be interesting information.

5. I'm SURE there are lots of people with 944NA'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't see getting one down to the 2375 range period..

[JeffYoung]

Fred, agreed, that is the question......let'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