944 weight reduction, any results

Darin, Joe, Greg and the Nissan racer family as a whole oppose the move of the 944 to ITA....... I get that.

Same whp as the ITA Nissan? Same areo maybe? 200 plus lbs more than ITA 240SX? I get it..

All the 944 people on here seem to agree it will not make weight but the Nissan crowd says it can, where are the Hondacura guys?

A couple of Mazda ITA guys tone seems to indicate they agree with the 944 guys but because they are iTA they should fight this tooth and nail ( and they could b/c they have a seat on the ITAC )

ITAC and board................... do your thing and let the chips fall where they may... This debate has ended its useful shelf life
 
Darin, Joe, Greg and the Nissan racer family as a whole oppose the move of the 944 to ITA....... I get that.

Same whp as the ITA Nissan? Same areo maybe? 200 plus lbs more than ITA 240SX? I get it..

All the 944 people on here seem to agree it will not make weight but the Nissan crowd says it can, where are the Hondacura guys?

A couple of Mazda ITA guys tone seems to indicate they agree with the 944 guys but because they are iTA they should fight this tooth and nail ( and they could b/c they have a seat on the ITAC )

ITAC and board................... do your thing and let the chips fall where they may... This debate has ended its useful shelf life
[/b]
Click to expand...


Pretty Chicken S**T Fred, It has nothing to do with brand and as I stated several pages ago I would be opposed to the ITS 240sx (which suffers the same issue early V Late) being moving to ITA. This not a brand issue it is that there seams to be a push by some folks to crown the 944 as the net ITA championship car. The ITA 240sx once again starts out at 140 HP and 152 ftlbs torque stock. 18 HP less than the 944. As has also been stated that were it not for the MAF the stock HP numbers would have put this car into ITS. One thing you can not say Fred is that the Nissan drivers here have not offered accurate information on both sides of the issue. I think it would be nice if you did the same. Don't try to change the debate with false arguments of brand loyalty.
 
Darin, Joe, Greg and the Nissan racer family...[/b]
Click to expand...

Completely coincidental. If I were driving an Integra, CRX, Saturn, Rabbit, Volvo, BMW, MR2, or whatever I'd have the same position: the Porsche 944, a rear-wheel-drive 2.5-liter, well-balanced world-class Grand Touring coupe is, philosophically and technically, not a good fit into ITA.

But I can fully understand how the Porsche drivers want it in there; if I were a Porsche driver, I would too. - GA
 
...This not a brand issue it is that there seams to be a push by some folks to crown the 944 as the net ITA championship car.

[/b]
Click to expand...
come on Joe, lets not get all dumb about this.....nobody is looking to do that, so don't go there.

The ITA 240sx once again starts out at 140 HP and 152 ftlbs torque stock. 18 HP less than the 944. As has also been stated that were it not for the MAF the stock HP numbers would have put this car into ITS.
[/b]
Click to expand...

But what matters is what they make, right? The process starts with stock numbers, but where we have better info, that is considered. In this case, it happens that even with the MAF issue, the Nissan and the Porsche make, within a hp or two, the same power.....

So, lets not smoke and mirrors it by pointing to disparities in stock numbers.
 
come on Joe, lets not get all dumb about this.....nobody is looking to do that, so don't go there.
But what matters is what they make, right? The process starts with stock numbers, but where we have better info, that is considered. In this case, it happens that even with the MAF issue, the Nissan and the Porsche make, within a hp or two, the same power.....

So, lets not smoke and mirrors it by pointing to disparities in stock numbers.
[/b]
Click to expand...
There is no smoke and mirrors being used, That is what the process was based on good or bad it has gotten cars closer than they have ever been in the past. Again you are proving the process is not being applied the same or all cars. and comp adjustments are on the way.

Jake LAST TIME I SAY THIS. You have numbers from one builder! You have no idea what exhaust work or other developemnt has not been done. I have been doing 240z engines for 15 years and we are still building exhaust systems and finding more. Stick to something you can work with. The process was never meant to shoehorn a car into a class just to make it a front runner and that's what you are trying to do. The 240sx at stock numbers fits the process properly from the place we started. If we were trying to go back 10 years and use the MR2 and the RX7 as the baseline then the 240 would be to fast for the class. But we can't fix all the previous F'up's of the past so there will have to be some shuffling. Moving the 944 will reshuffle the whole deck and you will be in the same place as we were not 5 years ago. I am done in this thread and I will make a counter case to the CRB and the BOD if need be.
 
Jake LAST TIME I SAY THIS. You have numbers from one builder! [/b]
Click to expand...

Stop screaming, LOL...actually, the numbers are from multiple builders.

. The process was never meant to shoehorn a car into a class just to make it a front runner and that's what you are trying to do. [/b]
Click to expand...

Stop. First, you have no idea what i am or am not "trying to do". Second, puleeeze..why WOULD I try to shove an overdog, as you say it will be, into my OWN class!?!?! Because I like getting my ass whipped?

Moving the 944 will reshuffle the whole deck and you will be in the same place as we were not 5 years ago. I am done in this thread and I will make a counter case to the CRB and the BOD if need be. [/b]
Click to expand...

I have better institutional memory than you think. I remember where I was further ago than 5 years ago, and the lopsidedness of ITA was caused not by the cars in the class, but by the improper weight setting. IF any of those cars had been placed in the class at proper weights, things would be much different. It's not just about the car.....

Please, as always, the ITAC loves input. Send in the numbers, the more the merrier.
 
Joe, I agree with you on the merits but again, you are losing this one primarily because of the way you are presenting it. Andy and Jake aren't biased -- they are just looking for ways to improve IT.

Here's why moving the 944 now would not improve IT in my view, and this is not any original thinking -- it is just a synthesis of the above without the yelling:

1. No one has conclusively established that a 100% 944 can't get to ITS process weight, much less within 50 or 75 lbs of it, and there is quite a bit of evidence that it can.

2. It has probably been a long time, if ever, that anyone has done a 100% build on a 944.

3. There is a significant risk that the car could be an overdog in ITA even at its process weight due to intangibles not really accounted for in the process.

4. Moving the car now, this soon after the reduction in weight, makes little sense because we haven't see if the top builders can get the car to ITS process weight. Given the downside, at a minimum waiting a few years seems prudent.
 
Joe, I agree with you on the merits but again, you are losing this one primarily because of the way you are presenting it. Andy and Jake aren't biased -- they are just looking for ways to improve IT.

Here's why moving the 944 now would not improve IT in my view, and this is not any original thinking -- it is just a synthesis of the above without the yelling:

1. No one has conclusively established that a 100% 944 can't get to ITS process weight, much less within 50 or 75 lbs of it, and there is quite a bit of evidence that it can.

2. It has probably been a long time, if ever, that anyone has done a 100% build on a 944.

3. There is a significant risk that the car could be an overdog in ITA even at its process weight due to intangibles not really accounted for in the process.

4. Moving the car now, this soon after the reduction in weight, makes little sense because we haven't see if the top builders can get the car to ITS process weight. Given the downside, at a minimum waiting a few years seems prudent.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Jeff, I don't feel Andy or Jake are biased in anyway as has been stated. Now you need to understand that sometimes trying to do what you feel is a good thing could in the long run be an unintended screw up with little chance of being corrected. I think all of the folks saying not to do this have all suggested a wait and see position on this deal since the car was just adjusted.

Lastly Jeff, Please do not forget my tag line.....
 
Joe, I agree with you on the merits but again, you are losing this one primarily because of the way you are presenting it. Andy and Jake aren't biased -- they are just looking for ways to improve IT.

Here's why moving the 944 now would not improve IT in my view, and this is not any original thinking -- it is just a synthesis of the above without the yelling:

1. No one has conclusively established that a 100% 944 can't get to ITS process weight, much less within 50 or 75 lbs of it, and there is quite a bit of evidence that it can.

2. It has probably been a long time, if ever, that anyone has done a 100% build on a 944.

3. There is a significant risk that the car could be an overdog in ITA even at its process weight due to intangibles not really accounted for in the process.

4. Moving the car now, this soon after the reduction in weight, makes little sense because we haven't see if the top builders can get the car to ITS process weight. Given the downside, at a minimum waiting a few years seems prudent.
[/b]
Click to expand...

OK so I am a sucker, I thought I was done again....
Jeff I would respond to your concerns as follows:

1. There is no evidence other than the Nissan camp that the cars can make weight and 50 or 75 lbs is not close enough..
2. Very good 944's have been built in the past, many in fact as Chris C. has said himself. Most of which did not make weight at 2715. I know. Now this crap about 100% needs to end because is any car really 100%? I think you could take Huffmaster's Mazda or Chet's e36 and drop say a 100 grand on it and make it better, lighter and faster all while being within the rules. What happens at 150 grand and so on. My car was nowhere near 100% in the engine but prep wise was very close as I have pointed out in prior post and weight is what we are talking here. People who are smart and competitive about their choice of race cars do research, nobody that wants to be competitive in ITS is going to build a 944, its a catch 22. My guess is you can wait a year or five, you will never see a "100" build 944 in iTS.........
3. How in the world do you think a 944 at say 2850 is going to be faster than one at 2715 or less is now??? The 944 does not have enough hp to go along with its "world class" chassis to be a overdog at that weight or any obtainable weight for that matter....
4. Again wait all you want, nothing is going to change. The only mistake the ITAC and board made in 06 was not moving this car then....

And note to Joe ( I like you because I think you are a rebel like me ) you provided Fordal's hp #'s and they matched or were very close to Milledge so at the very least the ITAC has 2 numbers! :D
 
I can't argue against waiting another year; little is lost by waiting, but if we rush this, there is the possibility, even if small (IMO), of upsetting a class which I thought was just made interesting again (after redressing the CRX weight imbalance previously mentioned). That WOULD be a big loss in my opinion.

What is lost by waiting another year? I would submit to you all that those who are unsatisfied with the competitiveness of the 944 in ITS have already either moved to a 944S, or to NASA - 944Cup, Spec944, or GTS Challenge.
 
Jeff, I don't feel Andy or Jake are biased in anyway as has been stated. Now you need to understand that sometimes trying to do what you feel is a good thing could in the long run be an unintended screw up with little chance of being corrected. I think all of the folks saying not to do this have all suggested a wait and see position on this deal since the car was just adjusted.

Lastly Jeff, Please do not forget my tag line..... [/b]
Click to expand...

Again, I have no idea why the word bias would even get typed. Jake and I are both in full support of teh process. If a car can't make its weight, it should be moved down at a new process weight. In this case, what some perceive as a overdog would be moving into our class. It's 180 degress of bias. Maybe stupidity!

Is there possibility it would be a mistake? Sure. The only beef I have with your post Joe is that it can get corrected - and WILL get corrected if it is proven to eradicate ITA.

I am really done with this. I do not think a 2850-2900lb 944 will ruin ITA and maybe it is because I am blinded by my faith in the process. But without micro-managing the classes ala Prod, it is the cornerstone of our newfound success.

The questions in front of the ITAC will be 'how close is close enough' on the min weight and 'if a certain year range on the spec line can make weight but another year range can't, how do you class the whole?'
 
Understood on all that.

I guess the bottom line for me is that if the car comes in close to min weight in ITS, then a change to ITA would essentially be a competition adjustment and one of those moves that should be reserved for "rare" oversights/errors in classification.

Beleive me, I want more 944 race cars in SCCA. But I don't think making an out of the ordinary change to try and do that makes sense.

Nor do I honestly believe that many guys will abandon 944 Cup et al to run a 2850 944 in ITA. But, I agree that there may be "new builds" at that weight.

Fred, just for kicks, run my car through the process and see where it ends up. 135 stock hp, 2560 weight. Live rear axle, drum brakes in the rear.
 
Fred, just for kicks, run my car through the process and see where it ends up. 135 stock hp, 2560 weight. Live rear axle, drum brakes in the rear.

[/b]
Click to expand...

What's cool is that when you run the numbers (I'll let Fred show his math I guess) on this car - and you use the power outputs that we know it can make - supported by Jeff's dyno data - it is SPOT ON. Using a straight 'formula', it's an ITA overdog - in a Big WAY.
 
Bingo! My car BELONGS in ITS, because of two "subjective" factors: way big torque and the fact that the motor makes about 40% more power in IT build than stock.

It is those same subjective, but harder to quantify numbers, that scare me a bit bout the 944. Balance. Brakes. Even decent torque. Aero.

Plus, I'm biased. I like racing against them in S.
 
Bingo! My car BELONGS in ITS, because of two "subjective" factors: way big torque and the fact that the motor makes about 40% more power in IT build than stock.

It is those same subjective, but harder to quantify numbers, that scare me a bit bout the 944. Balance. Brakes. Even decent torque. Aero.

Plus, I'm biased. I like racing against them in S. [/b]
Click to expand...


Ahh, yes Jeff, but keep in mind that you got zero adders or subtracters for your drum brakes (they are WAY oversized compared to other ITS drum setups), and the live axle thing gets you nothing as well, now that the traction bar stuff is out of the bag. But you did get nicked for the V8 torque, and the incredible HP gains....And while Ron got a break for British unreliability on his, yours started life as an American, so nothing there. ;)

But, seriously, keep in mind that the actual process weight before adders and such on the 944 in ITA is significanlty lower than the numbers being talked about here.

Also, keep in mind that top shops areound the country put the actual HP for the ITA 240SX and the 944 within less than 1% of each other. So if you compare ITA weights, you'll see the 944 has some catching up to do, vis a vis the 240SX. (2630, vs 2850)

Andy's got it boiled down though:

What are the real weights that are acheivable?
How close is close enough?
And, if it's different for different years, how to proceed then?
 
Ok, let's go with those then:

What are the real weights that are acheivable? Petty good evidence from above that the early chassis can come within 50-75 lbs of process weight AT LEAST.

How close is close enough? If we are moving cars from class to class over a 50-75 lb difference, we are making a mistake.

And, if it's different for different years, how to proceed then? Leave it as is. Just like a number of other models, 944 drivers will have to seek out the early chassis if they want to get to the lowest weight. This is no different than most cars. There are 200 TR8 coupes in the US (or were). They have far better aero than my car. I'd rather build one of those, but they are hard to find. That's part of IT life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top