944 weight reduction, any results

The ITAC would love to hear about these cars and see the math. If they are in the same situation, they will get the same due consideration.

Again, the process is math....if one of the inputs is wrong, the outcome has to be as well. If the ITAC screwed up and created a non acheivable situation, then it needs to be looked at. Seems simple to me.

But it doesn't mean we can't TRY to do a good job where we know the numbers and the issue.
[/b]
Click to expand...
.

BS Jake, there is a presumpttion of the value of certain adders and subtractors that is completely subjective by the folks that are doing the classing. While I trust that to a certain extent I don't trust it when you try to refine the classes down to a knats ass which is what is happening if you think moving a competitive ITS car to ITA is doing the right thing. Maybe it is the right thing if you are trying to shuffle the whole group downword over a period of time.
 
.

BS Jake, there is a presumpttion of the value of certain adders and subtractors that is completely subjective by the folks that are doing the classing. While I trust that to a certain extent I don't trust it when you try to refine the classes down to a knats ass which is what is happening if you think moving a competitive ITS car to ITA is doing the right thing. Maybe it is the right thing if you are trying to shuffle the whole group downword over a period of time.


[/b]
Click to expand...

No, there is no conspiracy here.

It's merely a case of determining if one of the inputs to the process was incorrect. If it was, then it needs to be adressed, it wasn't then there's no smoking gun.
 
The questions around classifying this car are based on HP figures given from ONE SINGLE engine builder, who supposedly builds the "best" Porsche engines for the 944... a big 2-valve, 2.5L, oversquare motor with good torque and RPMs, in a chassis that is 50/50 from the factory with HUGE brakes, and excellent handling... good aero too... Supposedly "cam" limited... (what IT car ISN'T "cam-limited"???)

[/b]
Click to expand...
Because all of the best of breed 944's seem to use him as a builder and their complaints about power back up his claims of crank peaks.

If this car isn't competitive in ITS currently, it's for one of a several reasons... Either no one has given one a full-tilt effort... or one who has given a full-tilt prep effort can't drive full-tilt... or the top of ITS is still too high up there and needs further adjustment to bring it back in line...[/b]
Click to expand...

Who cares about competitivness? All we want are cars that fit into the performance envelope they are designated for.

Maybe it's an East-Coast thing, because here on the West Coast, at thier OLD 2715lbs weight, they weren't that far off the mark of a Rebello or Top-Tech powered, full-tilt, well-driven 240Z... [/b]
Click to expand...

Maybe if the PNW had more than 3 cars in ITS, you might have a proper sample. I checked MYLAPS up there and Greg F. hasn't run against more than 2 cars all year...unless I missed something.

.

BS Jake, there is a presumpttion of the value of certain adders and subtractors that is completely subjective by the folks that are doing the classing. While I trust that to a certain extent I don't trust it when you try to refine the classes down to a knats ass which is what is happening if you think moving a competitive ITS car to ITA is doing the right thing. Maybe it is the right thing if you are trying to shuffle the whole group downword over a period of time.


[/b]
Click to expand...

Why do we have to keep saying that it isn't about competitiveness? If we WERE to talk about results, I am 100% sure your view is sku'd buy the limited sample size you have up there. There isn't one 944 8V winning races in a decent sized field that I can think of anywhere in the country. Please correct me if I am wrong...

But AGAIN, it's about whether or not this can can make 2575. If it can, it should stay in ITS, if it can't, then ITA at a new process weight should be considered...<insert broken record sound>
 
<insert broken record sound>
[/b]
Click to expand...

Perhaps the "broken record" you seem to be hearing is because I haven't changed my story, data, or facts about this issue in over 3-years of debate on the subject... I know what I'm talking about here...

If you guys are using "My Laps" as your "sample"... then you aren't getting all the facts.... That system has only been in service for a couple of seasons, and doesn't tell the whole story... There are local "Conference" level clubs that run the same IT rules as the SCCA, etc...

You guys are running the show, but moving this car, or any others like it, to ITA is WRONG and will upset the balance that was just starting to form in that class...

Good Luck...
 
There isn't one 944 8V winning races in a decent sized field that I can think of anywhere in the country. Please correct me if I am wrong...
But AGAIN, it's about whether or not this can can make 2575. If it can, it should stay in ITS, if it can't, then ITA at a new process weight should be considered[/b]
Click to expand...

Not only are they not winning ITS races you will not find where one has won ITA either ( timewise ) at todays listed weight..........

Joe I am telling you the weight is not possible because I have built one of these cars personally and at a high level of prep based on the rules 5 years ago. I could not make 2715 but I admit at 6'4" / 250 I have some built in disadvantage( make me 180 and I was still more than 75 lbs off). This car belongs in ITA at the correct process weight ( my math has it around 2800 - 2850 )
 
Because all of the best of breed 944's seem to use him as a builder and their complaints about power back up his claims of crank peaks.
Who cares about competitivness? All we want are cars that fit into the performance envelope they are designated for.



Maybe if the PNW had more than 3 cars in ITS, you might have a proper sample. I checked MYLAPS up there and Greg F. hasn't run against more than 2 cars all year...unless I missed something.



Why do we have to keep saying that it isn't about competitiveness? If we WERE to talk about results, I am 100% sure your view is sku'd buy the limited sample size you have up there. There isn't one 944 8V winning races in a decent sized field that I can think of anywhere in the country. Please correct me if I am wrong...

But AGAIN, it's about whether or not this can can make 2575. If it can, it should stay in ITS, if it can't, then ITA at a new process weight should be considered...<insert broken record sound>
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well Andy, I e-mailed Greg Fordahl and he gave me his information. I will put Greg's prep level and driving ability up against anyone. He say early chassis no problem to make weight late chassis will be really tough. He has seen 156RWHP on his best build. He states His brake and handling are what make the car work and the lighter weight will be a huge benefit. Please don't tell me my data samples are any worse than yours to start with you are not looking for results in the right places as we have to different sanctioning bodies out here and most of them run ICSCC.


Fred Based on the information from Fordahl maybe your usoing the wrong tub? I am sure you know Greg's history and I don't hink you will find a better Porsche builder in to many places. He has done his homework and is confident the early car can get there. His RWHP numbers would indicate that the car can make enoough HP at 2600 lbs to be an S car with its handling and brakes. Sorry man but handing out ITA championships is not right. I go about 240 and I figured out how to in with a heavy car......I only race on tracks that are counter clockwise. :birra:
 
my ep 944 weighed in at 2525# with 204# driver. thats 2321#. it had a 12 cell with hollow sway bars and hollow t bars. glass fenders and lexan all around. 10 # fire bottle and accusump no alternator or fan and no balance shafts. everything on the car did something. i worked a very long time with the undercoating. hated that part so bad i sold the car afterward :( just kidding but i just may have on any given day under the car. i dip the next one or just skip it.

Lawrence
 
Well Andy, I e-mailed Greg Fordahl and he gave me his information. I will put Greg's prep level and driving ability up against anyone. He say early chassis no problem to make weight late chassis will be really tough. He has seen 156RWHP on his best build. [/b]
Click to expand...

Well, that makes TWO guys at the exact same number.

And while the brakes are big, there are plenty of cars in S, A, B and yes, C with as large or larger. (And that power already exists in A as well..but about 200+ pounds lower)

Again, if the car can't hit the weight target, we (the ITAC) screwed up.
 
Well, that makes TWO guys at the exact same number.

And while the brakes are big, there are plenty of cars in S, A, B and yes, C with as large or larger. (And that power already exists in A as well..but about 200+ pounds lower)

Again, if the car can't hit the weight target, we (the ITAC) screwed up.
[/b]
Click to expand...

YOu know Jake you would be alot more convincing if you came across like you were listening instead of having to be right. I gave actual data from a qualified source. The transaxel in that thing is more likely to see 20% losses but since the transaxel is well placed providing with more than optimum weight balance it counters any looses it may provide by a long shot. The fact is at 189 HP with excellent brakes and handling this thing should add up to about 2600 lbs to start with. Wasn't the car an S car at 2700+ not to long ago?


You guys have at it. You have given me enough data to provide in my letters against this deal. Screwing the balance of the ITA cars would be just wrong. If guys are to lazy to get the cars under 2700 lbs then when you reclass to 2800lbs they are only getting 100lb weight gain not 325. 100 lbs will not slow them down at all once they have it moving.
 
The only data point you have given that has any relevance is Greg's info. You have supported the Milledge power numbers and provided a data point on the weight. THAT is productive.

Do you find it at all interesting that the two guys on the ITAC here who would be in support of the move (should it be warranted) BOTH run cars in ITA? The process is the process. Live by it, die by it...

BTW: It's tough to use sample data from another sanctioning body as we can't be expected to be experts in others rule sets. Get Greg to the ARRC or the Mid-Ohio IT festival in the 944 and we will all see first hand the data you are using. I Solo'd for years with Greg around and he is top-notch...actually trying to grab a spot on the ITAC for him but haven't seen his letter....
 
Sorry man but handing out ITA championships is not right. I go about 240 and I figured out how to in with a heavy car......I only race on tracks that are counter clockwise. :birra:
[/b]
Click to expand...


I am fast as hell at lowes and daytona but most everwhere else we run clockwise, bastards :)


Look Joe / Darin, if the board makes this change there will be no change in the pointed end of the ITA fields, the 944 can't keep up with the top ITA cars now, what is going to change by adding a couple hundred pounds to them???
 
The only data point you have given that has any relevance is Greg's info. You have supported the Milledge power numbers and provided a data point on the weight. THAT is productive.

Do you find it at all interesting that the two guys on the ITAC here who would be in support of the move (should it be warranted) BOTH run cars in ITA? The process is the process. Live by it, die by it...

BTW: It's tough to use sample data from another sanctioning body as we can't be expected to be experts in others rule sets. Get Greg to the ARRC or the Mid-Ohio IT festival in the 944 and we will all see first hand the data you are using. I Solo'd for years with Greg around and he is top-notch...actually trying to grab a spot on the ITAC for him but haven't seen his letter....
[/b]
Click to expand...

Which I still believe can be better and will discuss how with Greg whenn he returns. and Gregs numbers a few HP higher depending on what you use for drive losses. I don't find it interesting that the two of you drive ITA cars. There has never been a question of either of yours integrity and I defended it hard over the SIR deal if you remember right. As I stated many posts ago I can disagree with anyone and still respect what they think. I will continue to look at data. I am in the procees of trying to find a 944 to scale and dyno even if I have to buy one.....may be a market for a TopTech exhaust system if it makes power and is light.
 
One sidelight here.

So, it looks like even the proponents of the move would agree the 944 can get within 75 lbs of the process weight.

Is there some point at which close enough is sufficient to justify leaving teh car in S? While perhaps irrelevant to teh process analysis, I would suggest that in my experience 75 lbs does not the difference between 1st and 2nd place make. Several championship winning cars in the SEDiv are close to that over their minimum weight.
 
There is certainly a difference in being 75lbs. overweight with ballast or decent corner weights and being 75lbs. overweight because that's as light as you cen get it and you end up with a nose heavy/left side heavy car. So that may not be quite as simple of a comparison as it appears.
 
One sidelight here.

So, it looks like even the proponents of the move would agree the 944 can get within 75 lbs of the process weight.

Is there some point at which close enough is sufficient to justify leaving teh car in S? While perhaps irrelevant to teh process analysis, I would suggest that in my experience 75 lbs does not the difference between 1st and 2nd place make. Several championship winning cars in the SEDiv are close to that over their minimum weight. [/b]
Click to expand...

Yes Jeff. That is what the ITAC CRB will wrestle with. Thisis part of the subjective part that I don't like but we do have to be practical. If the early chassis can get within 25lbs or so, do we move it? Do we 'risk' ITA? Remember, back when we did the big 'correction' in Feb or 06, cars were changed who were outside of 100lbs of the process - that was a lot more weight...

I guess the issue will come down to 'how close is close enough' - and that will affect our recommendation.
 
Do we 'risk' ITA? Remember, back when we did the big 'correction' in Feb or 06, cars were changed who were outside of 100lbs of the process - that was a lot more weight...
[/b]
Click to expand...


Andy, how does this "risk" ITA? Again I doubt you will not find any year 944 with legal prep that is within 25 lbs of 2575 and I know no 85.5 up car can get within 100.... Are all 944's on the same spec line? Please explaine to me ( anybody ) how this would damage ITA other than an increase in entries?????
 
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 yes, I understand that the reasoning for this move centers around the weight issue, but if you're going to seriously discuss a move like this you need to consider all of the implications it would have. 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?

When I first started reading this thread the solution seemed like a no-brainer; if the car can't make its minimum weight then move it down a class. After reading all the arguments and re-thinking the issue, I'm pretty sure I believe this would be a bad idea. Yes it sucks that the car can't make its minimum weight (if that really is the case?), but is this the only car in IT that can't make weight? Hell, I don't know of anyone with an ITA 240SX hatchback who is down to min. weight; maybe we should consider moving this car to B?

Just some more food for thought.
 
When I first started reading this thread the solution seemed like a no-brainer; if the car can't make its minimum weight then move it down a class. After reading all the arguments and re-thinking the issue, I'm pretty sure I believe this would be a bad idea.[/b]
Click to expand...

Same here.

Moving a car to another class is not a finesse item, it's a correction of a gross misclassification. Seems like since we're splitting hairs here, it's probably not a good idea...

Besides, take the macro view: ITS is a big-engine rear-wheel-drive grand sports sedan and sports car class (with notable exceptions), whereas ITA is a 4-cylinder front-wheel-drive econo-car-based class (wtih notable exceptions.) Given this, where does one honestly suggest the Porsche 944 belongs...?

Greg, opinion known and now signing off this discussion, given the significant perception of conflicts of interest...
 
First to Fred - I put risk in quotes when I wrote that statement. Whenever there is a change, there is a risk it could be a mistake. I don't think this is one, because I believe the process works, but there is a 'risk'. I am a firm believer that reward must always outweight risk for a change to be made.

Earl,

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?

Again, this is about a car that POTENTIALLY can't make weight. THAT is how we justify it. 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.

I am sure there are other cars that can't make weight - but it is impossible for us to know them all. This came up because someone wrote a letter and expained an issue. We have 240SX hatches here in NER that have to add ballast to get to 2630. Besides, there is no way we would differentiate between TRIM levels...
 
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?
[/b]
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with total HP and everything to do with HP/weight ratio........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top