944 weight reduction, any results

Regarding the 944, it is unique in it's own way. And actually, the process fails it, and others like it. [/b]
Click to expand...

Jake I think you are quite right.


The 2.5L 8valve 944 is a great racing platform. It has lots of really nice things going for it that make it a wonderfull car to race and in certin forms actually very cost effective.


The issue is that it simply does not fit well in the current performance targets of ITS and ITA. We in 944 spec had the luxury of creating a racing rule set for the 944 to maximize it strengths and minimize its weakness. The result has been lots of fun racing my 84 chassis for the past 4 years and alot of others getting into the 944 racing game.

IT classes are not based around 1 or two cars, but around certain performance and mechanical configuration ideals. There always needs to be some cut off between one class and the other and some cars fall between these classes. The result is a car that may a be a great racing platform, but not competitive to run, build or maintain in either class.

So I think the weight reductions are a step in the right direction. Maybe ITA is even better? In the end however the 944 needs to be classed where the process puts it. If it is not competitive or cost effective to build for that class then that is just too bad. While it maybe alot of fun to have lots 944 racing in IT you can sell the soul of IT by giving it some crazy rules allowance to do so.

In any mixed class with different types of cars there are always cars that are more competitive and cost effective. Thankfully not every one chooses the "easy" way and they pick something a little different to create some color for the class. Even so in class with 50 legal cars seeing 10 of them built in any significant number is great diversity. Sadly those other 40 are probably just not worth it. They still need to be classed and with full 100% build they should be able to win, but if they merely "hard to build" there is little that can be done.

So in the end I don't believe the goal of ITAC should be to get more 944 in IT, but merely to ensure that a 100% build 944 can run with the other 100% build cars in its class.
 
So in the end I don't believe the goal of ITAC should be to get more 944 in IT, but merely to ensure that a 100% build 944 can run with the other 100% build cars in its class.

[/b]
Click to expand...

What a post. A perfect example of someone who gets the 10,000 foot view as well as the local view.



To your last statement...if we can accomplish the 2nd half, the first should/could follow...and that is the goal.
 
Jake I think you are quite right.
...................

So in the end I don't believe the goal of ITAC should be to get more 944 in IT, but merely to ensure that a 100% build 944 can run with the other 100% build cars in its class.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Yup! Great post! And there are TWO great points there....;)

The KEY to the last statement I bolded for us.

And right now, I'm thinking that is NOT the case....and not because what I have or have not observed from on track performance.

If the car can't make the weight....and evidence suggests that's the case, then we need to fine tune things and take a fresh look.

Look, if we put it in ITA at 3500 pounds, nobody would worry about it being an overdog, right? So fears should be allayed by the proper use of the process.

I think that this car is one that could fit in ITA well at the right weight. Spec for spec it aligns pretty well with the 240SX.

(One side issue that wsa alluded to by Joe is the ability of a one marque/one model ruleset to fine tune to the car...we can't do that, but certain allowances of the 944 ruleset are against the IT philosophy, like the replaceable A arms. So we might not get lots of crossover....and thats a shame, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get the car in the right class at the right weight, and let things fall where they may.)
 
So in the end I don't believe the goal of ITAC should be to get more 944 in IT, but merely to ensure that a 100% build 944 can run with the other 100% build cars in its class.
[/b]
Click to expand...


That is, in fact, the point! To have the 944 in a place where a 100% build is on a "rules" equal footing with the rest of the class... The addition of a bunch of 944's is simply a byproduct of this.. Everybody I have spoken with or talked with on boards has agreed that a 944 is a tweener and could operate in either class but the problem here is that the class weight for S is just not realistic.. If you add weight to the car it fits the process just fine in A. Agree on the process weight and move it....
 
What a post. A perfect example of someone who gets the 10,000 foot view as well as the local view.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thanks, :P

To your last statement...if we can accomplish the 2nd half, the first should/could follow...and that is the goal.
[/b]
Click to expand...


This may not always be the case if that 100% build costs 3x what it does for the other 100% cars in class. HOWEVER the corellary is nearly always ture. If a 100% build car CAN'T complete vs the others 100% cars then few people will ever build one even if costs 1/3 the price.


With respect to some weight numbers and what can be achieved.

my Chassis is an 84. This weekend I went over the scales with 40lbs of ballast low fuel (but still may 2 gallons in the tank) 2633 was the number both days. I am about 165 with full gear. My class min is 2600lbs

Below is complitation of a few things told another racer looking to lose weight in his 944 (his target was a 200lbs driver and 2550lbs min which would be strech in my mind). This applies to 944 spec rules so you can see what of the kind of things we allow that IT may not. Hopefully it will help with the discussion on the ability for a 944 to get to 2575lbs in IT trim.

----
I figure I can do the following to cut some more weight . (from 2633 my 155 weight)
1) Remove 40 lbs of ballast -40 => 2593 lbs
2) Light weight batter vs stock - 15 lbs => 2577lbs
3) Remove door glass & door panels (motors & arms gone already) - 15 lbs => 2562 lbs (I would probably stop here since would be close to min and like have the pass seat for rides.
4) Remove pass seat & heavy mounting -15 => 2547lbs
5) Tackle remaining interior goop - 5lbs => 2542lbs
6) Remaing emissions crap in engine - 1lbs => 2541lbs
7) fresh air blower motor and heater box - 6lbs => 2535lbs
8) Aluminum mount bar for my turbo oil cooler vs steel - 1lbs => 2534lbs
9) After this I would just start looking alot more closely at everything. I am pretty sure I could take away 5-10lbs more lbs if I had time to really study it more. Given I add ballast now I have given up the search for more weight reduction.

944 spec class limitations
1) Mirrors must be stock on the outside. IE full flag mirrors, inside can be anything
2) Body panels must remain steel
3) Bumpers must be stock
4) No lexan allow in windshield, rear hatch or qtr windows.
5) Cutting away large bits of the metal shell is really frowned upon (don't do it)
6) Stock gauges must remain.

944 Spec Allowances
1) Everything that is bolted down and is not needed to operate the car
2) All coatings both inside the car and under the car
3) The 40lbs of heat shielding between the engine and firewall.
4) A/C and all parts
5) heater and all associated parts
6) Body mouldings including front & rear bumper pads
7) powersteering and all related parts
8) Door glass and all related parts. (Please keep the stock door bar for safety)
9) Lightweight battery (instock location only)
10) Any bits of wire harness that was used for removad components
11) All misc brackets used to support removed parts
12) Windshield wipers, motors & linkages (BTW... you can races safely with just a driver's side wiper)
13) All headliner and or sunroof parts (must fix in place stock roof panel)
14) rear hatch motor and related parts (use key to open rear hatch)
15) hood and hatch lift shocks
16) Replace heavy cast iron headers with ligher stock tube headers
17) Cat replaced with Test pipe
18) Replace muffer with straight pipe (must meet local sound limits however)
19) Driver's seat only with Aluminum Side rails
20) 1.75 x .095 DOM custom cage with close eye paid to not "jungle gym" the car with 500 tubes.
21) "Late 944" smaller lighter starter motor.
22) headlights & all parts
23) windshield washer tank
 
:018: they aint going to let you do all that and run IT i dont think. Has anyone looked at the best times of the top ITA cars like the 240sx and a fully build 944 at ITS weight? are they close? i know you dont use times as a basis for class but you have to be real about it too.
 
:018: they aint going to let you do all that and run IT i dont think. Has anyone looked at the best times of the top ITA cars like the 240sx and a fully build 944 at ITS weight? are they close? i know you dont use times as a basis for class but you have to be real about it too. [/b]
Click to expand...
Unless you can prove each car was prepped and driven 'properly', on-track data is virtually useless. Even the ARRC (where top drivers and top cars tend to congregate) could never be used as a single data point. Lots of data, used to see trends is about all we can hope for. And even at that, we HAVE to rely on the process. As an ITA driver - I think this is a legit ITA car at around 2800 give or take 50 based on 'adders'. I would love to see some more running.
 
...This may not always be the case if that 100% build costs 3x what it does for the other 100% cars in class. HOWEVER the corellary is nearly always ture. If a 100% build car CAN'T complete vs the others 100% cars then few people will ever build one even if costs 1/3 the price. ...[/b]
Click to expand...
As true as your corollary might be, there should be NO consideration of cost when classifying/specifying IT cars.

It sounds like a 2800+/- pound 944 fits in A. If it got moved, the next question would be, "How many people are interested in building one?"

K
 
It sounds like a 2800+/- pound 944 fits in A. If it got moved, the next question would be, "How many people are interested in building one?"
K
[/b]
Click to expand...
Ahh and here is the problem with classifying tweeners. According to the Process the car fits in two classes. The higher class is at a weight that may be hard to achieve for many cars. In the lower class the car has to run heavy, and the ITAC needs to make a guess at which class/weight drivers would rather race. Odds are no matter which way they decide some drivers will not like the decision and will not race the car.

If we trust the process, and if a car truly fits in either class using the process why not just class it in both at the appropriate weights and let the market decide.

Trust the process
 
"How many people are interested in building one?"
[/b]
Click to expand...


My guess is that alot of them have already been built for other clubs.....

My next guess is that the "market" is going to opt for the heavy weight ITA over the light weight ITS that most will never get down to.....
 
All of this sounds like a very good thing for the 944. they can run in scca ita and nasa 944 cup with just a change in some weight in the floor. jump to its if they feel up to it at a lower weight. sooner or later they will settle on where they like best and some of the cars will run with the SCCA as well as other clubs. win win for the car either way.

I have played with these cars for a few years now and would consider building one for ita if its approved

Lawrence
 
It sounds like a 2800+/- pound 944 fits in A. If it got moved, the next question would be, "How many people are interested in building one?"
[/b]
Click to expand...
Ive been building my 924s for DE over the last 6 months. If the 924/944 gets bumped down to ITA, thats where Id be racing when I do finally make that switch in a year or two.
 
... If we trust the process, and if a car truly fits in either class using the process why not just class it in both at the appropriate weights and let the market decide.

Trust the process
[/b]
Click to expand...
What was consensus on dual classifications? Hmmm.

If the argument for listing something fat in A is that it "can't make the S formula weight," then move it. If the argument is "it's hard to build a car that makes weight in S" or "it's expensive to...", then it needs to stay in S. Which does it seem to be for the 944?

Someone has ask if, in the aggregate, we improve the quality of the category and club racing program by dual-listing. If we do - and despite the fact that I'm not a fan, I don't KNOW whether that's the case - then dual listing should be standard practice in all cases where the math makes it feasible. If that argument doesn't stand, it questions whether dual classification is a good thing for just this option.

I trust the process. I don't trust inconsistent applications of the process, or arguments that get applied to single makes/models of car.

If I could save the hundreds (and hundreds) of hours and $$ necessary to try to get the Golf III down to ITB weight (and fail, so far) by having the option of running 300 pounds heavier in ITC, I might choose to do that. Is that option, for all of us, good for the program?

Or is the 944 a 2800# A car and ONLY a 2800# A car?

K
 
My thoughts are the 944 would be more popular in ITA at 2800lbs.

Why?

A 100% build car might be fine in ITS at 2575lbs
A 100% build car might be fine in ITA at 2800lbs

Now... that meets the primary goal of ITAC and that is to ensure a 100% car is competitive.

So lets consider what people might perfer to build.

Race a lighter car in a faster class?

or

race it a bit heaver vs "slower" cars. Seems to me that given the effort it takes to get to 2575 that the average 80% build car and driver would be happer being mid pack in ITA at 2800lbs vs being back of the pack in ITS at 2680lbs. While ITAC must class for 100% build it is really the 80 to 90% build cars that form the bulk of the fields so I think a weak motor simple build 944 would be better in ITA were it only gives up hp vs being in ITS were it gives up hp and has a hard time getting to min weight.

Or consider it another way

ITS 944 at 2575lbs
Suspension/brake prep ... Not that hard lots of off the shelf parts, but they cost Porsche prices - Medium
Engine Prep ... Costly, but possible - Hard due to $$$$
Weight reduction ... Doable, but takes alot of effort - Hard due to attention to detail required

Overall effort to 100%? - Hard

ITA 944 at 2800lbs
Suspension/brake prep... same as ITS - Medium
Engine prep ... Same as ITS - Hard
Weight reduction ... - EASY can even add ballast.
Overall effort to 100% - Medium hard
 
If the argument for listing something fat in A is that it "can't make the S formula weight," then move it. If the argument is "it's hard to build a car that makes weight in S" or "it's expensive to...", then it needs to stay in S. Which does it seem to be for the 944?

[/b]
Click to expand...


Kirk, It is NOT a S car period. The "process" has it at a weight for S ( hypothetically the process can have any car be a S car at low enough weight ) but without illegal mods the car can't make its weight for S, 100% build or otherwise. That is the ONLY issue here. The ITA Integra could be a ITS car if it could loose several hundred pounds, for that matter your Golf would do just fine in S at say 1200-1300 lbs but I dare say 1200 lbs would require some weight reduction outside the scope of IT rules. I don't see any real problem here and I don't think this is a twist of the rules or process, just simple math.
 
Sad, thats all I can say. There are a bunch of nice 2.0 liter cars that just got moved that are gonna take it right in the butt over this deal. Why not move the 4 valve 240sx at the same time it is in about the same position. I am starting to think it was way better when we didn't promise a car would be competitive. SO is the end goal to just move everything down hill until ITC is popular again? The MR2 and the RX7 going to B next?
 
Sad, thats all I can say. There are a bunch of nice 2.0 liter cars that just got moved that are gonna take it right in the butt over this deal. Why not move the 4 valve 240sx at the same time it is in about the same position. I am starting to think it was way better when we didn't promise a car would be competitive. SO is the end goal to just move everything down hill until ITC is popular again? The MR2 and the RX7 going to B next? [/b]
Click to expand...

So let me ask you a question Joe. If car X looks and smells like an ITS car but when you run it through the 'process' it spits out a weight that is unobtainable, what do you do? You have two options:

1. Leave it at that weight and have it flounder into nothingness (spawning a Spec series for another Organization)

2. Push it down a class and adjust it's process weight so it fits there. It may have to add ballast, but it would still fit.

What would you do and why?
 
So let me ask you a question Joe. If car X looks and smells like an ITS car but when you run it through the 'process' it spits out a weight that is unobtainable, what do you do? You have two options:

1. Leave it at that weight and have it flounder into nothingness (spawning a Spec series for another Organization)

2. Push it down a class and adjust it's process weight so it fits there. It may have to add ballast, but it would still fit.

What would you do and why?
[/b]
Click to expand...


I would remember that just a few short years ago nothing could or would be done and people still built these cars. I would also remember that when this system was worked out it was promised that adjustments to the class would be limited. Lastly the thing that really troubles me is the process clearly is not putting enough consideration on torque and how that will effect the overall dynamic of the class. Weight while a will not balance these cars in enough places that it will be effective by itself. The only reason the S13 works in ITA is because it breaths air through a straw. I would feel the same way about that car if the later MAF was approved for it. The process not long ago was being used to move some real screwups by past BODs and now it looks like the process will be used to shuffle a whole set of classes south. Sorry Andy it is not often that I disagree with you but this is one time. IT makes no promise of competitiveness and the 944 and the 240sx 4valve are way closer to S cars than A cars. It is not easy to get down to minimum weight on alot of these cars but it can be done. I guess east coast 944s must be heavier than west coast cars cause we have guys still racing them with power windows and passenger seats and doing quite well. I know you don't want to here the SIR word but that's the only way that you could even get close to a fair argument for 2.5 liters to be moved to ITA.
 
Are we entirely sure that the 944 is not competitive in S? Didn't a Chris Camadella win a bunch of races in the NEDiv not too long ago? Is it that case that it is simply easier to make a 944S competitive now, so that is what people do?

I'm not sure (and no offense to anyone who runs one) that there are any 100% 944 builds out there running right now in S. I think most guys have moved to the 944S, and the Van Steenburg car sure looks way fast to me.

Edit --yes, I understand the issue is a bit different. Can the 944 get to its process weight? I guess my point is that even if it can't, if it is competitive anyway, should it be moved? I also worry about what this car might do in A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top