January 2009 Fastrack is out..

[tom91ita]

...What I found far more troubling is what in the hell is K.P. Jones' problem with Mike Tearney? Someone wake up on the grumpy side of the bed...?

Link to Jan Fastrack:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-jan.pdf

i thought that was very odd as well. i did not see anything in the appeal regarding weight of the car. i was wondering if it was major discrepancy from the required weight.

if i miss the weight because i cut it close on fuel and come in 5#'s light, i would expect to be tossed for qualifying and start at the back.

but if i came in 150#'s light because i "forgot" all my ballast, might that impact how much i am penalized?

[chuck baader]

Xian...bingo!!! Thanks...did not make myself clear enough. Chuck

[StephenB]

does anyone know what the DX had for weight before this change?
Why and or how did it get changed?

Thanks,
Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

Josh-

Sorry, I am with Greg on this one.

Loved the Beetle comment: "ITB – Move the Beetle to ITB (Conover). ITC is still alive."

Loved the comment, but I have to admit it is unprofessional and pathetic... Is it to hard to take a members request seriosly??? SAD, VERY SAD.

"Classify the 70-72 Porsche 914-6 in ITA." Wow. A nice mid-engine 2-liter 6-banger in ITA at 2095 pounds...maybe Blake will rethink that ITB project...

Very Cool!!! Always liked the 914's....

Looks like Touring is going the way of Improved Touring 20 years ago, with removal of interiors...the creep was inevitable...

Touring into IT, IT turning into Prod, and Prod turning into GT... Where will we be in 20 years???


Next issue, where are all the letters asking that all IT cars be run through the process???

Raymond

[JoshS]

Josh-

Sorry, I am with Greg on this one.

That's okay, I think you guys have me convinced (I was just asking before, I really didn't have an opinion.) If anything I would like to remove the mention of rear spoilers from the section about front spoilers, and otherwise leave it alone.

[spnkzss]

does anyone know what the DX had for weight before this change?
Why and or how did it get changed?

Thanks,
Stephen

2250 pre
2110 post

The reason is for some reason it was not run through the process even though it was suppose have gone through it as the process was "in place" when it got moved from A. There were requests to have it looked at and run through the process properly. It was and this is what it came up with.

[Knestis]

Yup. The DX weight was determined to have been an error.

And on the NB response - that's what the committee actually determined. Since that car could have been listed in either C (at its current weight, kinda fat) or B (at a weight that the ITAC wasn't - and still isn't - convinced it could make), the only rationale for the move would be if B were simply more attractive than C. I personally believe this to be the case but to move it would be to tell current ITC entrants that we were in essence abandoning their class by steering cars to a marginal listing (at a potentially unobtainable weight) another class, instead of where they actually fit. The point at which we are actively NOT listing new cars, we've consigned the class to its longterm fate. Doom.

I would way rather race a NB in B than C, and can see how a CMS customer would feel the same way. But you want us to look out for the entire category right? If we ever reach a point where we don't think C is viable - and I personally don't think that has to happen if we list some new cars - we should be honest, give it the bad news, and "unplug the machine" officially, rather than letting it linger in hospice.

K

[Xian]

Ding! missed that, thanks. - GA

No worries.

Personally, the 914-6 looks like it should be exceptionally fast at that weight (150# lighter than the CRXen and something like 500# lighter than the Integra's). Power should be relatively modest but torque should be good with 2.0 liters of displacement. Aero should be good, brakes are big, and the balance should be near perfect. The trick, as has been pointed out, is finding one of the 1800 imported and converting it to race duty...

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 914 got +50 for mid engine and +50 for HUGE brakes. 25% power multiplier.

[Greg Amy]

The trick, as has been pointed out, is finding one of the 1800 imported and converting it to race duty...

The 914 got +50 for mid engine and +50 for HUGE brakes. 25% power multiplier.

Great little car.

Actually though, Christian, all you need is a 914-4 and a rusted-out 1969 911T donor (you need the drivetrain, 5-bolt hubs, brakes, front suspension, and probably a few other things I forgot...)

I "assume" the ITAC is "assuming" that the 914-6 GT is excluded from the spec line, due to either engine specs and/or "limited production" rule? The GT got the 2.2-liter and the large fender flares, and would need a later "T" drivetrain. It would be a PITA to find the fender parts to transplant over, though.

[JeffYoung]

From a 914-6 GT website:

Many of the parts used on the GT were developed specifically for the 914 while other were race proven components that had been used on some of Porsche's great race cars such as the 904, 906, 908 and 911. Fewer than 50 GT packaged equipted cars were assembled by the Porsche factory however 400 GT kits were produced and made available for dealers and customers to turn their 914-6 into a GT racer.

I'd never heard of the thing. Probably should be specifically excluded on the spec line.

[Xian]

Great little car.

Actually though, Christian, all you need is a 914-4 and a rusted-out 1969 911T donor (you need the drivetrain, 5-bolt hubs, brakes, front suspension, and probably a few other things I forgot...)

I'm not an aircooled Porsche expert but, according to Blake, there are lots of model specific parts/brackets/components that can only be sourced from a 914-6 chassis. The VIN rule requires the new car to be identical and indistinguishable from the original model... doing this is going to be nigh on impossible in this case.

edit:
Jake also supplied the same info about chassis specific parts... VIN swap on this car is going to take a donor 914-6.

[Greg Amy]

The VIN rule requires the new car to be identical and indistinguishable from the original model... doing this is going to be nigh on impossible in this case.

Yeah, but...policing it is ALSO going to be nigh on impossible... I'm not saying someone would cheat with the car - hell, you could drop a 2.4 engine in this thing and no one's going to be able to tell - but without the VIN rule it wouldn't keep me up at night knowing I built a 914-6 from a 914-4 and a 911T, effectively making a 914-6 for all intents and purposes.

Jeff, the GT is effectively excluded due to engine specs. And, the fender flares are gonna be hard to hide...

[JeffYoung]

Got it - it's a 2.2, so the engine specs are different.

[lateapex911]

The 914 -6 GT isn't excluded because it isn't listed. The 914-6 IS listed. Engines and tons of stuff are different.

The engine in a 914-6 is the 901-03. It's the same engine found, as Greg stated, in a 69 911T. 110 whopping horsepower. Low compression, air cooled, small carbs and tight manifolds, it just won't run past 6700 or so. The 25% is a standard gain that this car will be hard pressed to hit. It can possibly hit that, but as always, it should need a full build to get there.

A 914 -6 differs, chassis-wise, from a 914-4 in a lot of significant ways. To be totally legal, it's a lot of work. Many of the items have no bearing on the competivness or performance of the car. Going half assed is an option for those who aren't concerned with outright legality, and who run in more "local" areas where such things aren't frowned on, but, anyone who does an ounce of research can spot the differences easily.

As always, it's not the concern of the ITAC whether something is easy to police or not. The book is littered with examples of easy cheats that are impossible to find, if nobody is willing to find them. As in, "Write the paper".

Gregs example of the displacement increase is as easy, or easier to discover on a 911 /914 as on any engine.

All in all, I wish it were easier to get this particular car on the track, bit it is what it is. Competitors in the NE should be on the lookout for one next spring.

[Greg Amy]

Competitors in the NE should be on the lookout for one next spring.

Tease!!!

(Obviously, someone requested it, otherwise it wouldn't have come up for consideration. But I didn't figure it would be so close to home...)

[ekim952522000]

Thank you ITAC for fixing the preludes =)

[MMiskoe]

As soon as I read the 914-6 thing I instantly wondered if a converted 914-4 would be allowed. The differences are huge overall, but for what we do they are quite limited for those that actually make a difference. To do it per the IT book you would need a 914-6 donor car. There are just too many little parts that didn't come from any other source. But if impound looked the other way at things like the 914-6 had the ignition key on the left side of the dash, it is not so hard to make the change.

If you talk to any diehard 914 fan, they'll say that the last 914 on the face of the earth will die its death on the racetrack.

[Knestis]

... But if impound looked the other way at things like the 914-6 had the ignition key on the left side of the dash, it is not so hard to make the change.
...

The RX7 rear wing issue notwithstanding, it's OUR responsibility to enforce our rules.

K

[Fastfred92]

As soon as I read the 914-6 thing I instantly wondered if a converted 914-4 would be allowed. The differences are huge overall,

Correct me if I am wrong but outside the bulkhead engine mount (easy to duplicate), oil tank holes and mount, ignition / steering, bolt on suspension, electric washer bottle, hand throttle, some linkage, shifter, and some trim parts there is little different between 914 chassis from early 4 cylinder cars? I have played with 914's for 20 plus years and looks to me as easy a swap (except $$$) as any CRX, Rabbit etc..