944 weight reduction, any results

[Fastfred92]

Hey Andy,
Is Geroge still on the ITAC? Where does he weigh in on this subject? I know at one time he was building a 944 ( for a really long time ) what weights did his car come in at?

If, indeed, the ITAC agrees the 944 is a "tweener"; what harm is done by adding process weight and moving the car to ITA?

I have a personal concern about making weight on most any car ( my size and I have ran alot of SS cars ) and I am not sure yet how close my ITR e36 will be but I would rather err on the side of heavy to allow for a cage I feel is safe, larger fire system, center net, data etc, etc, When the ITAC can identify real tweeners they should consider dropping them a class with the correct new weight and if that includes Joe's Nissan then so be it..

My .02

 

[Greg Amy]

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.[/b]

You are mistaken. Adjustable coilover suspension CANNOT correct front-to-rear and left-to-right weight balance, it can only correct deviations in diagonal corner weights.

My front-wheel-drive Nissan NX2000 has a ~62/38 F/R weight distribution, and that's after SIGNIFICANT dicking around with installed and fabricated equipment and some pretty clever "thinking outside the box". It'll never get any better.

Ergo, the rear-wheel-drive, nicely balanced Porsche 944 chassis starts with a significant handling advantage.

Will look at the mr2 (91-93) if it goes to ITA...[/b]

Look no further. It's already been approved in ITA and I've got a project available for sale: http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=9958 I estmiate you can be on the track for ~$6,000.

If, indeed, the ITAC agrees the 944 is a "tweener"; what harm is done by adding process weight and moving the car to ITA?[/b]

That's pretty obvious, isn't it, Fred? The answer is, of course, "what if they're wrong?" and it really does upset the apple cart? We all know that it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to un-do such mistakes, no less so than undoing any government social welfare program...

If you truly understand and believe in the process, and are not giving it lip service simply to get your car moved down to ITA where it would be more competitive, then you truly understand and believe that being within 50-75 poounds of the process weight is equivalent to being there. However, if you're asking to have your car moved because it can't get exactly down to that process weight, then I suggest it's more lip service than anything else...

It's time to take a break. The 944 has not yet been built to-the-hilt, taking advantage of the new weight, nor has it had a fair and to-the-hilt fight against the (100 pounds heavier - you obviously believe that's a pretty significant amount of weight) RX-7 without the presence of the BMW E36. I'd suggest we let it ride and let the competition shake out now that the unrestricted E36 is out of the picture and running in ITR. There's not been consistently run "SpeedSource-quality" prepped 944 than I'm aware of, and until that happens I see no value in moving the car. Fred implied that this was "telling", but that's a chicken-and-egg situation: has no one prepped the 944 because it can't compete, or can it not compete because no one prepped one? Hell, if I had to compete against the unrestricted E36s I'd skip on building a 944 too! That car's gone; let's let the class shake out some more before we start moving cars around.

And as for not being able to make that last 75 pounds? That new weight's only 9 months old; how many people have actually been trying hard since March 2006?? Think harder. Try harder. Spend more money. There's nothing in the rules that says your car can get moved because that last 75 pounds is gonna be real expensive or tough to get. If you're out of ideas, come see us, we'll find it for you (bring your checkbook).

I'm doing a mental comparison of the RX-7, the E46 BMW, and the Porsche 944; then doing the same thing with the Acura Integra, Honda CRX, Nissan NX2000, 240SX, and the Porsche 944.

The latter just seems so absurd... Yep, if I had a 944 I'd want it in ITA, too...

Greg, deciding that he'd obviously not be the only guy with a conflict-of-interest in this debate...

 

[lateapex911]

....... the S2 would be neat but they are getting hard to find. .............
[/b]

Not hard at all...I can walk out my door and trip over one. It's a perect candidate...lots of key replacements, just add a cage, LOL. And I am selling it. Too much to do to the house at this time...no time or $ for a car project.

 

[924Guy]

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?
[/b]

Sorry, wrong on both counts. 15x7 phonedials are more like 15 lbs - only a few heavier than the Fuchs.

Chris's quote clearly indicates that he's talking about his (old) 8V; the 944S is a 16V car, and what he is now running, in my understanding. Not sure why this is still unclear.

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.
[/b]

I do have to agree with this; I cannot help but wonder if just 1 year is sufficient to see results!

 

[lateapex911]

Well, if RACING results are what we're discussing or looking for, then no a year isn't enough I guess....but I HOPE we're not looking for racing results. If we're talking about people BUILDING to the new weight, well, there might not EVER be enough time if the perception among those who have or are considering the car is that there's no way to make the weight.

Besides, it's just math....if a known great builder took a crack, did a full strip, and came up well short, (and even if he left some items on the table that we know of, thats easy math) thats a solid data point. Should we wait until three guys do that? Will three guys ever do that after hearing about the first guy?

 

[Fastfred92]

If you truly understand and believe in the process, and are not giving it lip service simply to get your car moved down to ITA where it would be more competitive, then you truly understand and believe that being within 50-75 poounds of the process weight is equivalent to being there. However, if you're asking to have your car moved because it can't get exactly down to that process weight, then I suggest it's more lip service than anything else...

I'm doing a mental comparison of the RX-7, the E46 BMW, and the Porsche 944; then doing the same thing with the Acura Integra, Honda CRX, Nissan NX2000, 240SX, and the Porsche 944.

The latter just seems so absurd... Yep, if I had a 944 I'd want it in ITA, too...

Greg, deciding that he'd obviously not be the only conflict-of-interest person in this debate...
[/b]

First Greg, I am not building a 944 ( been down that road before ) so no dog in this fight but I do know what the cars weigh and how far off I was at even the old ITS weight.

Second my mental comparison tells me that yours is assuming that no 944 has been built out 100% but the RX7, e46, 240z etc have all been built 100%. I think you will find that even at the ARRC the range of prep level is significant so I think on track we are seeing what cars will do. I don't see many 944's that can keep up with the mid pack ITA guys at say the ARRC, much less the fast guys like you. Tack 200 - 300 lbs and I am pretty sure no apple carts are being bothered.

The Acura and 240sx make almost the same HP #'s as the 944 at less weight, the CRX at much less weight make massive HP over its factory rating in IT trim and I got a hunch the lone NX2000 does not do too bad either. At 2850 with the underachieving motor and factory T bar suspension this car fits right in. Your ARRC reign is not in jeopardy!

Belated congrats by the way

 

[Banzai240]

The Acura and 240sx make almost the same HP #'s as the 944 at less weight, [/b]

There is a BIG difference between 148 or so 1.8L Acura wHP, and 155 2.5L Porsche whp... a BIG difference...

The 240SX and the Porsche are much closer in comparison... and the 240SX would be an ITS car if it made just a few more stock HP... it's only 140hp from the factory (due to the MAF size/configuration), compared to 158 for the 944... If the 240 could use the S13 and later MAF, it'd be an ITS car for sure... and the earlier car can actually make the weight...

 

[Fastfred92]

There is a BIG difference between 148 or so 1.8L Acura wHP, and 155 2.5L Porsche whp... a BIG difference...

The 240SX and the Porsche are much closer in comparison... and the 240SX would be an ITS car if it made just a few more stock HP... it's only 140hp from the factory (due to the MAF size/configuration), compared to 158 for the 944... If the 240 could use the S13 and later MAF, it'd be an ITS car for sure... and the earlier car can actually make the weight...
[/b]

Darin, not to be disrespectful but even when taking into account the Acura fwd platform ( a really good one as fwd platforms go ) but I have a hard time seeing a really BIG difference in 7hp that has to haul 250 more lbs even when the torque is factored in......... I bet, by your answer, that the Nissan makes more hp than the 944?? I know you know Nissan's, How much hp does the ITA Nissan make? ( Darin or Joe )

 

[Joe Harlan]

Darin, not to be disrespectful but even when taking into account the Acura fwd platform ( a really good one as fwd platforms go ) but I have a hard time seeing a really BIG difference in 7hp that has to haul 250 more lbs even when the torque is factored in......... I bet, by your answer, that the Nissan makes more hp than the 944?? I know you know Nissan's, How much hp does the ITA Nissan make? ( Darin or Joe )
[/b]

Not as much as the low claimed numbers for the 944. I provided Dyno sheets to the ITac a couple of years ago so those folks know exactly.

And Fred please do not try to make the suspension on the 944 an issue cause your own credibility will become an issue then....I have raced against and driven these cars and they rock in terms of ability to change direction.

 

[Fastfred92]

And Fred please do not try to make the suspension on the 944 an issue cause your own credibility will become an issue then....I have raced against and driven these cars and they rock in terms of ability to change direction.
[/b]

Again, I have no dog in this fight Joe but I do have first hand knowledge of this car, thats all! I know that building any street car into a IT car provides obstacles and the suspension for a 944 is a bit more obstacle than a fwd car that has struts all around.... It is a hell of alot easier to corner weigh and setup a car with four coilovers and I can have 6 eibach springs in 25lb increments for every custom grind T bar. That is why Porsche went to coilovers for their 944 based race cars.. Obstacle, not a issue!

 

[Joe Harlan]

Again, I have no dog in this fight Joe but I do have first hand knowledge of this car, thats all! I know that building any street car into a IT car provides obstacles and the suspension for a 944 is a bit more obstacle than a fwd car that has struts all around.... It is a hell of alot easier to corner weigh and setup a car with four coilovers and I can have 6 eibach springs in 25lb increments for every custom grind T bar. That is why Porsche went to coilovers for their 944 based race cars.. Obstacle, not a issue!
[/b]

Not when the car starts at near perfect balance and the support is out there for TB rates out there the effort is not a whole lot more than any other car, Weltmeister and sway away make a large number of different rates and if I remember sway away offers hollow bars to reduce the weight of them.

 

[Knestis]

Seriously, guys - do you think that classification process should REALLY attempt to factor in TB vs. strut suspension?

It seems to me that if it gets to a point that THIS is the substance of disagreements, then we ain't gettin' no closer.

K

 

[Fastfred92]

Joe, How bout I give up! A quick internet search ( weltmeister, sway-a-way, paragon, elephant etc. ) found 7 or so different diameter bars both hollow and solid, that gives me about 7 different spring rates. A quick check of anybodys 2.5 spring chart finds maybe a hundred or more spring rates, slight difference...

This is all about the fact that a car will not make its process weight in ITS and is within performance parameters that with the correct process weight applied could slide down to ITA, thats all, regardless of its torsion bar size.

I have submitted a request as a SCCA member for such a change, lets see what happens.....

 

[Banzai240]

Seriously, guys - do you think that classification process should REALLY attempt to factor in TB vs. strut suspension?
[/b]

Kurt... just for reference... the process DOES consider strut vs. A-Arm vs. ??? for suspension... It comes into play when considering the "adders" to the base calculation...


And, for the record... 7hp in ITA is worth 101lbs... or so... In ITS it's worth about 90lbs... But, since ESTIMATING HP, even with some valid dyno numbers, can't possibly be expected to get the HP down to within 1-2hp of the "real" number... you can't argue these cases based JUST on HP numbers... Torque, suspension, brakes, transmission gear ratios, balance, aero... ALL come into consideration... The "Process" just gives a really good place to start... but even it's flawed, because it relies on numbers (HP) that, if off by even 4 or 5 hp, yield 50-60lbs off results to start with... The "Objective" analysis starts after that... so it's NEVER going to get it "right on", as seems to be trying to be done here...

 

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, How bout I give up! A quick internet search ( weltmeister, sway-a-way, paragon, elephant etc. ) found 7 or so different diameter bars both hollow and solid, that gives me about 7 different spring rates. A quick check of anybodys 2.5 spring chart finds maybe a hundred or more spring rates, slight difference...

This is all about the fact that a car will not make its process weight in ITS and is within performance parameters that with the correct process weight applied could slide down to ITA, thats all, regardless of its torsion bar size.

I have submitted a request as a SCCA member for such a change, lets see what happens.....
[/b]

No problem Fred, I have summited data against and will continue to stay on top if this one. I am sorry but I look at the cup as being a lot fuller on that car and I could look a custmer in the eye if they wanted to spend the bucks to get one of front in ITS.

dia Solid Hollow
25.5 167.56 115.91
28.0 243.58 191.93
28.5 261.45 209.8
29.0 280.28 228.64
30.0 320.99 269.34
31.0 365.97 314.33
32.0 415.53 363.89
33.0 469.96 418.31
34.0 529.56 477.92[/b]

So based on what I know about the suspension this bar selection and rates should get anyone pretty dam close. Even I could find something here that would work.

And Kirk you are correct so unless new data is brought forwardI will save everything for the CRB.

 

[JeffYoung]

I think we say fark it, slap a JATO on that sucker, and put it in ITR.

 

[Knestis]

... just for reference... the process DOES consider strut vs. A-Arm vs. ??? for suspension... It comes into play when considering the "adders" to the base calculation...[/b]

My question was more subtle than "does it" - I asked "SHOULD it?"

If 7hp is about 100# in ITA, what does that mean if we try to make adders/subtractors like suspension design work at, say +/-50 pounds? That we think we have control of the entire system to down around the equivalent of 3.5hp??

I'm just sayin'...

K

 

[Bill Miller]

That's pretty obvious, isn't it, Fred? The answer is, of course, "what if they're wrong?" and it really does upset the apple cart? We all know that it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to un-do such mistakes, no less so than undoing any government social welfare program... [/b]

Greg,

Maybe I missed something, but how would this be any different than a newly-classed Wombat XTR? The way I understand the PCA process (and the way it's written in the ITCS), is that things get monitored for the first few years a car is classified, and adjustments can be made (up or down) in the process weight. The way I understand it, a car that gets moved to a different class, gets treated as a newly-classed car, for the purpose of the PCA process.

That being said, the answer to your question, is that they correct the mistake. If they can't correct the mistake, what's the point of having a PCA system at all?

As far as the 944 (or any car for that matter) being able to make its ITS weight, IIRC, one of the major arguments as to why the New Beetle was classed in ITC was that it was felt that it wouldn't be able to make its ITB process weight. If a car can't make weight, it should be moved down, period. Start w/ what the process says the weight should be for ITA, and go from there. If it's too light, use the PCA system to correct it.

Trust the process and use it objectively! A lot of people did a lot of heavy lifting to get a system in place to address this very issue, why wouldn't you want to take advantage of it? But, if what you're saying is that even w/ the PCA system in place, weights can't change (since the great adjustment of '06), then what you're saying is that what the ITAC worked for (vis-a-vis PCA's) was a waste of time.

Have a little faith.

 

[latebrake]

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.
[/b]

I fail to see where the transaxel in the 944 or any other car has anything to do with the class it runs in. is there some way to adjust in IT for this kind of thing??? are other cars being cut weight or add it for balance pro-con? Who is to say it better anyway?
I know !!! if i put all i know about cars in a tin cup i would still have lots of room for something else i know little about but i have written codes and law so it is a slippery slope to class cars on balance. Nothing personal Joe i just picked your post because it has the issue

Lawrence

 

[Joe Harlan]

I fail to see where the transaxel in the 944 or any other car has anything to do with the class it runs in. is there some way to adjust in IT for this kind of thing??? are other cars being cut weight or add it for balance pro-con? Who is to say it better anyway?
I know !!! if i put all i know about cars in a tin cup i would still have lots of room for something else i know little about but i have written codes and law so it is a slippery slope to class cars on balance. Nothing personal Joe i just picked your post because it has the issue

Lawrence
[/b]

Lawrence,

one word......"balance" From the factory this car has better balance than any other. And yes it should be considered just as FWD is considered.

Bill, It's the same deal here as in any other class, Make a big mistake and you kill particpation, once an adjustment is made it will take the process way to long to counter correct. The original deal was promised to be used with extreme caution in mind. This car was given a lighter weight less than a year ago and nobody has demonstrated that they have taken full advantage of the legal mods to even try to get there.

How bout this from 06 track records at firebird:
FIREBIRD RACEWAY - EAST COURSE Track Lap Records
AS
CF
CSR
DSR
EP 01:04.677 JOE SKORCH/ Chandler AZ AZ MAZDA RX7 04/30/06
F500
FA *** 00:55.858 GARY LAHAIE/ Scottsdale AZ AZ Swift 014a 04/30/06
FC 00:58.229 BARRY EBERT/ Cave Creek AZ AZ 04/29/06
FF
FM 00:55.873 KELLY GALLANT/ Scottsdale AZ AZ Star Mazda 04/29/06
FP
FV
GP
GT1
GT2
GT3
HP
ITA 01:11.136 RAYMOND BIRITZ/ San Diego CA SD/AZ MAZDA RX7 04/29/06
ITB 01:13.397 DAVIS KOFFRON/ Phoenix AZ AZ/CSCC VW GTI 04/29/06
ITC
ITE
ITS 01:07.960 JORGE DIAZ/ Tucson AZ SD/AZ Datsun 240Z 04/29/06PR07
RS 01:08.023 JOE STUBBLEFIELD/ Mesa AZ AZ PORSCHE 944 04/30/06
S2
S944 01:07.471 AZ PORSCHE 944 04/29/06SF
SM 01:08.068 JERRY NUNEZ/ Tempe AZ AZ 04/29/06
SP
SRF 01:05.288 GRANT LANGDON/ Phoenix AZ AZ SPEC RACER FORD 04/29/06
SRX7 01:09.788 AZ MAZDA RX7 04/29/06
SSB 01:10.250 PHILLIP ROYLE/ Valley Village CA CSCC Mazda MX5 04/30/06
SSC
T1
T2
T3
Chief of Timing & Scoring
Van Diemen
NORMAN HAMDEN/ Sedona AZ
Mazda Miata
DEVIN DAHN/ Litchfield Park AZ[/b]

These are the most recent records and from a region that has probably the highest spec 944 participation around.

Again not using on track data as a data point........ :snow_cool: