944 weight reduction, any results

[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'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's 190 HP car into ITA but not brand B'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'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'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'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'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's 'strengths' 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'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'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'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 'compete' for a piece for wood.
[/b]

Careful Andy... the RX7 guys are gonna see this and then all hell is gonna break loose

[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's laps? THAT is the weight it would have to be in ITA to fit the process. I don'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's CURRENTLY OUTRUNNING THE FAST ITA CARS AT TODAYS LOWER WEIGHTS????


I know we don't use ontrack data but jeez, be reasonable with all this talk of blowing up ITA with evil 944's

[Knestis]

Even though they might not be, Fred it's just too possible that nobody fast has been motivated to build a really good one - given the perception/conviction/whatever that it's not ever going to be a good ITS car. We just can't use that information reliably, regardless of our philosophical positions to competition adjustments (bleah).

K

[Fastfred92]

Even though they might not be, Fred it's just too possible that nobody fast has been motivated to build a really good one - given the perception/conviction/whatever that it's not ever going to be a good ITS car.

K
[/b]

Telling isn't it....


I guess that is why my old car toils around the Porsche Club

[erlrich]

I know we don't use ontrack data but jeez, be reasonable with all this talk of blowing up ITA with evil 944's [/b]

Fred - I'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't know if it would or wouldn'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'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's in mind mind were the process should have them because I am concerned that the process used didn'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'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't cause like me it's about the fairness of the classification and competition.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fred - I'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't know if it would or wouldn'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't be the first time. [/b]

Earl,

All your concerns are valid. It'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 'nice' 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's fundimentaility since it'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'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't see how you feel that by adding 250+ lbs to the car is going to: a) be faster than now and 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't even make weight.

I don'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't killling the pointy end pf ITA but they would as soon as they are classed where they would be an overdog.[/b]

That'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...

[lateapex911]

In some ways, this is getting funny.

Facts: Results don't matter, but it'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't make weight, and show their numbers. But others, who have NEVER built a 944 say they can make weight, but can'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're being told. "Yeah, well there might be more someday, you never know..."

I'm actually amazed the 944 guys here haven't said, "Huh???? 2850!?!?!? Are you guys NUTS?? We'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't see how you feel that by adding 250+ lbs to the car is going to: a) be faster than now and 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't even make weight.

I don'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'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't fit the perfomance envelope of ITA.

[Fastfred92]

I'm actually amazed the 944 guys here haven't said, "Huh???? 2850!?!?!? Are you guys NUTS?? We'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. 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. 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 . 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”. 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. 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.

[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. 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.

I spent 2 hrs searching times on mylaps and divisional postings. 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 . 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". 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. 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.

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'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'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 6'3" 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.
[/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 '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.

[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'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'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'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'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.