944 weight reduction, any results

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy

My guess is you would see increased participation by the hordes of NASA, PCA, et. etc 944 guys. My gut feel is that 2700 or so would be closer to right given whats already know about this car, I am still of the opinion that the suspension ( t bars ) is more of a handicap than anybody has given credit for.

Start at 2800, that would be fine.... thats what 200 lbs over the Acura guys and my guess is that they can get pretty darn close hp #'s, just going to be short in the torque department.

Has anybody submitted this to the board??????? [/b]

Using known Milledge crank numbers, the process puts this car right at 2805 for ITA. I would think that ~160whp is doable with the full-tilt boogie - so it would have around a 15whp advantage and decent torque advantage over the Tegs. Not to mention 50-50 weight distribution and HUGE brakes compared to most.

This was considered when it got corrected but no such request has been submitted to move it to ITA.
(On edit) My 'process numbers do not take into account 'adders' when moving to ITA.

[lateapex911]

Interesting...I ran the process quickly, and I came up with 2790.5....LOL. Andy, we might have to compare our Milledge crank hp numbers..we're off 1 or 2...

[RSTPerformance]

I just skimmed the end of this post, and I am sorry that I havn't "stayed tuned" to this whole post... Later I will try to read more, but from quick review I am VERY WORRIED about where ITS is heading... right into ITA.

It seems to me like winning cars (top 50%) are getting moved into ITA all the time, and this one looks to be another posability you all are concidering. Take a step back and look at the "creep" that continues to happen. SOOOOO many ITA cars that are already classed have no chance in heck (full 100% build) at keeping up with the front runners, and we keep adding ITS tweeners in. ITR was created, keep ITS cars where they are and if need be add some weight to the top dogs or remove weight from them and move them to ITR. Do the same with some of the ITA cars that have already been moved or classed already and bring things back to reality for the rest of the ITA cars that are being left in the dust and can't go to ITB because the HUGE gap in performance potential that currently exists.

ITA keeps getting faster and all the other classes are staying the same. Soon the gap between ITB and ITA will be able to fit 2 classes, nevermind one and ITA will be faster than the ITS cars if they are not already.

Sorry, the coment might be out of place, but these "tweeners" need to stop moving just so they can win, and yes we (My dad) has a 944 in the build process, and I still don't think they should all move.

Raymond

[latebrake]

My 944 E/P car ran an Erik Maden engine with a milledge head and cam. no balance shafts with 10.9 pistons and did 186hp on a good engine dyno and 152 at the wheels. the trans was a little trick so i didnt drop the IT 20% to the ground. I dont think an ITS engine is going to get 160 to the ground unless it is very fresh and something ???? :snow_cool: a top legal 944 with a milledge engine is 185 hp at the fly wheel. you can count on a solid 20% drop for a net of 148 whp. I know all you have to work with is math but that is real world # on the car I had. Erik Madsen finished 2nd at the nationals in E/P in 05 and is a good wrench and worked with Jon Milledge to develop the engine and trans for the car. If you are putting more than 150 whp on an 8/v 944 in IT trim you got to be pulling my leg just a little i think. just food for thought

LAWRENCE

[Andy Bettencourt]

I just skimmed the end of this post, and I am sorry that I havn't "stayed tuned" to this whole post... Later I will try to read more, but from quick review I am VERY WORRIED about where ITS is heading... right into ITA.

It seems to me like winning cars (top 50%) are getting moved into ITA all the time, and this one looks to be another posability you all are concidering. Take a step back and look at the "creep" that continues to happen. SOOOOO many ITA cars that are already classed have no chance in heck (full 100% build) at keeping up with the front runners, and we keep adding ITS tweeners in. ITR was created, keep ITS cars where they are and if need be add some weight to the top dogs or remove weight from them and move them to ITR. Do the same with some of the ITA cars that have already been moved or classed already and bring things back to reality for the rest of the ITA cars that are being left in the dust and can't go to ITB because the HUGE gap in performance potential that currently exists.

ITA keeps getting faster and all the other classes are staying the same. Soon the gap between ITB and ITA will be able to fit 2 classes, nevermind one and ITA will be faster than the ITS cars if they are not already.

Sorry, the coment might be out of place, but these "tweeners" need to stop moving just so they can win, and yes we (My dad) has a 944 in the build process, and I still don't think they should all move.

Raymond [/b]

Ray,

Can you name an ITS winner that has moved to ITA? I don't think so. The general core car in ITA is an 140hp sport compact. The cars that have been winning ITA for YEARS - still are. The Teg, the CRX and the 240SX are all still WINNERS. No NX2000, 2.0L 16V Golf or Neon ever won an ITS race (that wasn't a rainout - ok, never say never but really.)

Help us out with the ITA cars that have no chance (and that information exists for - and that people want to race). And when you tell me the Capri you guys used to run, I would GUESS it didn't have 1/2 the development Greg's NX has. That 2.8L would rock at some big tracks if it was built to the hilt.

These cars are not 'tweeners', they are ITA cars that were rediculously misclassed in ITS. Look at the times from the ARRC and you will see a proper seperation in times. ITA got faster in the Northeast by 10ths this year - in perfect conditions...just 10ths from Serra's records.

The 944 IS a tweener. 158 stock HP is well outside of ITA - but HP potential in IT prep is well below most all other cars, putting it closer to ITA power to weight targets that to ITS.

If there are ITA cars that you think should be in ITB, by all means, put them up here - post the specs and we can debate it but the cars in ITA now should have NEVER been in ITS.

ITA keeps getting faster and all the other classes are staying the same. Soon the gap between ITB and ITA will be able to fit 2 classes, nevermind one and ITA will be faster than the ITS cars if they are not already.[/b]

I wanted to pull this out specifically. A very short-sighted view Ray! Take a look at trends across the country. Records get set every year. Didn't a 'come-out-once-in-a-blue-moon' Opal dominate you guys at NHIS recently? Maybe ITB is getting faster. It's short sighted to use local results under a microscope.

[Greg Amy]

...I am VERY WORRIED about where ITS is heading... right into ITA.[/b]

cue rolleyes...

[RSTPerformance]

Its just a concern I have... No doubt, I DO think that you guys are doing a great job creating the class ITA. You also did well moving a few cars into ITB, and you have done well getting ITR off the blocks. However I do get concern as ITS is now dead, and maybe it was before, we just didn't see it cause cars like the 944 and (Absolutely no offence) Greg in the egg were finishing in respectful positions even though they were several seconds off the front runners.

I do like the new process and maybe I am worrying to much... All I ask is that everyone is very hesitant before moving any tweeners, just because someone has invested lots of $$$ and prove that a car can't win and wants to become a front runner dosn't justify making a car competitive in a "slower" class. NOT all cars will be, no matter how much we all want them to be (even I wish that). We can not deny that several of the cars that have been re-classed have been instant front runners, and this car I certainly think could fit into that catagory.

Raymond "When the RX-7 and MR2 get moved to ITB (Its a matter of time), add 200lbs to my Audi and move me to ITC..." Blethen

OH PS: Sorry for getting this off topic, If I did so... Didn't mean to.

[Knestis]

... just because someone has invested lots of $$$ and prove that a car can't win and wants to become a front runner dosn't justify making a car competitive in a "slower" class. ...[/b]

No, no, a thousand times no.

Andy and the ITAC'ers keep demonstrating that they are being faithful to the process, while all around them IT entrants keep demonstrating that they can't get past the presumption that classing and weights should get (or are getting) set based on what they have done on the track.

If the 944 is a 2800# ITA car, then it's a 2800# ITA car. If the mechanical attributes say that it should be a 2700# ITA car, then that's what it is.

Now that said, I am NOT particularly comfortable with the "engine builder X gets this power" approach. Back when we were first talking about doing a formulaic system, the assumption was going to be that generally, IT prep got X% and driveline losses were like Y%.

We've progressively tried to get more accurate, going through phases of "'70s technology cars gain X%, more modern ones gain Z%," to now where we start to see things like, "I would think that ~160whp is doable with the full-tilt boogie" - for specific car models. Just like, "if the process says 2800, it should be 2800," if the general math says "160whp," that figure should be used in the math. If it's "Builder Bob says 160," THAT I am a little anxious about...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Its just a concern I have... No doubt, I DO think that you guys are doing a great job creating the class ITA. You also did well moving a few cars into ITB, and you have done well getting ITR off the blocks. However I do get concern as ITS is now dead, and maybe it was before, we just didn't see it cause cars like the 944 and (Absolutely no offence) Greg in the egg were finishing in respectful positions even though they were several seconds off the front runners.

I do like the new process and maybe I am worrying to much... All I ask is that everyone is very hesitant before moving any tweeners, just because someone has invested lots of $$$ and prove that a car can't win and wants to become a front runner dosn't justify making a car competitive in a "slower" class. NOT all cars will be, no matter how much we all want them to be (even I wish that). We can not deny that several of the cars that have been re-classed have been instant front runners, and this car I certainly think could fit into that catagory.

Raymond "When the RX-7 and MR2 get moved to ITB (Its a matter of time), add 200lbs to my Audi and move me to ITC..." Blethen

OH PS: Sorry for getting this off topic, If I did so... Didn't mean to. [/b]

Why do you say ITS is dead? At last check it was the second largest IT class in your region...well ahead of ITB.

Ray, you know as well as anyone that in Regional IT racing where driver ability and car prep vary so much that you can come in the top 10 and be 5 seconds off the leader. Just because Greg had some top 10's in ITS doesn't mean it was an ITS car.

The ITAC and the CRB do NOT move cars based on results. You need to read this thread in full to find out how the discussion progressed.

The WHOLE POINT of the process is that IN THEORY, a top developed car with a top driver has a shot at the win. Greg's car was a 4-year project with more development than almost any IT car in NER. It adds up perfectly. This isn't Production where we class cars conservatively and 'inch' them toward the peak - then handicap them when they win. We class them with a goal of equality - and changes don't come.

And I will add that if the RX-7 and MR-2 go to ITB - and they have the same hp/weight numbers as the current cars in ITB (with additional consideration for out-of-the-ordinary charateristics: as in any class) why would you want to move?

No, no, a thousand times no.

Andy and the ITAC'ers keep demonstrating that they are being faithful to the process, while all around them IT entrants keep demonstrating that they can't get past the presumption that classing and weights should get (or are getting) set based on what they have done on the track.[/b]

Correct. 1000 times correct.

Now that said, I am NOT particularly comfortable with the "engine builder X gets this power" approach. Back when we were first talking about doing a formulaic system, the assumption was going to be that generally, IT prep got X% and driveline losses were like Y%.[/b]

Well unfortunately, I disagree. When we 'know' something, we know it. Otherwise, the 101 stock hp 12A RX-7 would be running rings around everything in ITB at about 2150lbs. NO WAY!

We've progressively tried to get more accurate, going through phases of "'70s technology cars gain X%, more modern ones gain Z%," to now where we start to see things like, "I would think that ~160whp is doable with the full-tilt boogie" - for specific car models. Just like, "if the process says 2800, it should be 2800," if the general math says "160whp," that figure should be used in the math. If it's "Builder Bob says 160," THAT I am a little anxious about...

K [/b]

Remember, the Process is not predicated on WHP numbers - it's built (albiet flawed) on crank numbers. My comment on the 160whp was an estimate based on the 'known' max from one of these motors at 185-190 crank hp. Guys claim a 20% loss so 153-155whp may be more likely but it's a moot point WRT the Process.

[RussJones]

Quote Ray " ITS is now dead"

Ray, on the contrary, I left ITS in 2002 (black 944) and felt in those days things were starting to fizzle out. When i came back last year (red 944S) i was overwhelmed at : A) the number of participants the number of quality front runner drivers C) close lap times. At the Narcc last year we had something like 9 cars that qualified within .05 sec, now thats good racing. We have in NE, at least 15-20 ITS cars per race, and there are a solid 6-7 that can win, other classes you pretty much know ahead of time who will win.

So I wouldn't worry about ITS.

PS-I think the 2 e-36's that run would be smart in staying with ITS not go to ITR.

Russ

[Knestis]

...When we 'know' something, we know it. Otherwise, the 101 stock hp 12A RX-7 would be running rings around everything in ITB at about 2150lbs. NO WAY! ...[/b]

But the RX7 has an entirely different TYPE of powerplant, so that's an adjustment to a physical attribute, rather than a make/model. I'm cool with that.

However, when we start diddling with the differences between how one manufacturer's DOHC engine might gain power vs. another's DOHC engine, then we are on dangerous ground, I think. I've seen evidence of this creeping into the conversation.

I'll be careful how I word this but, the point at which the level of granularity of adjustments to the process reaches the make/model, the PCA system becomes de facto competition adjustments.

Bleah.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

But the RX7 has an entirely different TYPE of powerplant, so that's an adjustment to a physical attribute, rather than a make/model. I'm cool with that.[/b]

Well, yes and no. Mostly no I think. The new Renesis 13B is very maximized from the factory. Every data point from GAC teams show it's power potential in IT-like trim is very limited, so it's not just that each TYPE of engine gets X as a hard and fast rule.

I'll be careful how I word this but, the point at which the level of granularity of adjustments to the process reaches the make/model, the PCA system becomes de facto competition adjustments.

Bleah.

K [/b]

Unfortunatley, a hard and fast formula can never work IMHO so if we know something that could be part of the process - so that we could proactivly avoid a PCA down the line, that is a win/win. We have said it a million times, it will never be perfect and most cars are classed using the tried and true 25% increase...but if we classed all rotories at the 20% Renesis increase, the other cars would be overdogs. If we classed all rotories at the 50% increase the 12A sees, all the others would be hopeless underdogs.

Call them 'proactive' comp adjustments if you will, but IMHO it is the right thing to try and get it right the FIRST time - especially if you aren't going to change it in the future. Knowledge is power.

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

I strongly trust your recomendations, and your judgement on the future of all IT classes, so I will not rant , I just wanted to jump in and say be careful. I think I got that across. I think that I do understand the process, and I DO think that it has worked (gregs car for example fits perfect IMO with the others in the front of the ITA class). I do think though that several cars could fit into two classes, and you and the others should be weary of just populating the currently most popular class, ITA.

Thank you guys for the replies, and puting me back on track after my spin

Raymond

[lateapex911]

I see Kirks point, of course.

The rotary thing is a great example. On the face of it, the engines are both rotaries, so they get the same hp bump assumption right??

Uh, no. While they are both rotaries, there are significant architectural differences in the way the sub systems function, and that essentially changes the potential for increased output. It actually changes what the engine is.

While the old rotaries had the limiting issues in areas that were legal to be changed, the limiting issues in the Renesis aren't modifiable within the IT ruleset.

So, in essence, they are different animals.

How do we deal wth that?

Well, we realize that the physical properties ARE different, and adapt the process around those proeperties, what we know the capabilities are, and will be. Unfortunatley, (or fortunately) the example pool is rather thin: 1 example. So it might appear that the process is being noodled on a car to car basis.

Regarding the 944, it is unique in it's own way. And actually, the process fails it, and others like it. The 911 is rather badly represented by the process as well, and as it was a recent addition, based on a request, we won't see any of those cars hit the track. And thats too bad.

The entire idea of the process was to predict, as closely as possible, the power potential, and the success lies in the accurate determination of the factors that go into that. If we know the potential, it behooves us to take serious consideration of it.

In the 944s case, we are very certain of our info.

[RSTPerformance]

In the 944s case, we are very certain of our info.
[/b]

That seems to be said a lot by the ITAC, and suprisingly I have to support that statement and trust it. Based on decisions made so far (especially with one certain car) you were correct on your data and it showed as any changes you have made thus far have been a benefit to the club as a whole.

Raymond

[dickita15]

Raymond, two things about ITS.
First locally we saw a lot of top drivers move on in the last two years, that is just natural but temporary.

Secondly and more importantly the ITAC just changed the way they view front wheel drive cars in the higher classes. I think they realized in these higher HP classes that FWD needs a little weight break. I think over the next couple of years this will bring a number of new cars.

[Knestis]

...the shift in the FWD basic factors in S being a great example of the process applied to a "type" or general characteristic. A good use of the system.

K

[Fastfred92]

This was considered when it got corrected but no such request has been submitted to move it to ITA.
[/b]

Has now! I am used to having my request turned down so lets see....

[924Guy]

Has now! I am used to having my request turned down so lets see....
[/b]

I seem to already recall putting in a vote of support for a previous motoin to move it to ITA, which was shot down (within the past 2 years); regardless, I naturally plan to put in my vote again on this one!!

[Fastfred92]

I seem to already recall putting in a vote of support for a previous motoin to move it to ITA, which was shot down (within the past 2 years); regardless, I naturally plan to put in my vote again on this one!!
[/b]

vote early and vote often!