944 weight reduction, any results

[Fastfred92]

Then lets see the data? Is there a reason not to post the list of cars here that I suggested? The Dyno information is likely 1 source. [/b]

My guess on the 944 is that the data for HP is from Milledge, fair enough b/c he may be the only pro engine builder who has invested in IT rules for a 944 just like everybody pegged Sunbelt as THE e36 engine people

Again I agree there are other examples of tweeners that have a hard time making weight, let them make the request and see what happens. For the disscussion here we will keep it limited to IT but there are also cars that just can't move down i.e. Mazda Protege in ITA ( not possible to make its ITA weight either )

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Joe,

The process is getting applied evenly - AND smartly. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit your arguement. Here is the deal:

We use a 25% increase in hp for IT-legal mods as the standard. When we know something, we apply it. We do this in an effot to not have any overdogs. Otherwise, you are looking at a straight formula - that we know can't work. If we applied 25% to everything, there are plenty of cars that would absolutly DOMINATE. I know Kirk doesn't want to here this, but it really is a proactive PCA. Why have the 12A RX-7 run over everything for a year, wreck a class, and then use the exact same numbers we WOULD HAVE used up front, to make a PCA on the back end? Booo.

3 cars on your list get 3 different considerations for power - because we KNOW BETTER. The 944 is at 20%, the 240SX is at 25% and the RX-7 is at 30%. Without these proactive considerations (again, when we KNOW the numbers), the RX-7 would run wild with no competition. Other cars that would also ruin classes? 12A RX-7 in ITB (because it has what, 101 stock hp? Duh.), CRX in ITA, 13B RX-7 in ITS, etc.

Do you have a problem with the CRB taking a proactive approach to classing cars?

(FYI: Milledge says 185 at the crank, we use 189 or a 20% increase)

 

[lateapex911]

Yah jake lets use a couple worthless data points as an example. The AMC is never going to be built in any quantity that will ever matter. Was that car moved from ITS to ITA? Think not. Was it run through the process? Think not. and when you take the engine ability of that car based on the same IT type gains OHV verses the non-existant brakes and handling it is probably an ITC car. But the point is back to the 944 jake. Run the process in public on the list of cars I asked for and show me that the 944 is not an ITS car!
[/b]

Well, the point is, that different cars have different engines with different configurrations and different injection systems and different valvetrains and different cams and different....wait for it....sizes.

So, in ITA, we have a 4.2 liter AMC, a 3.7 litre Chevy (and Buick sister), a 2.7 litre Ford, a 2.8 litre Pontiac, and a 2.7 litre BMW. ALL, by the way run at less weight than the 944 proposed weight.

I shouldn't be trotting out other cars...it's not about other cars. It's about the 944, but I did it to illustrate the variables involved.

The process is about balancing variables. Weight is one of those variables. If the prescribed weight is unattainable, it thows off the process.

The ITAC is investigating whether the car can or can not come reasonable close to the intended weight. And the guys on the ITAC are bright enough to look at the answers and ask the good questions, like: Total strip? Light hardware? What cage tubes are in? Wheels and tires? Seat? Driver weight? Fuel cell? Method of attaching the cel? And so on.

As for power, when there are well known real world numbers, those are taken into consideration. Again the aim of the process is to class properly. IF we KNOW the car makes more....or less, then we need to take that into consideration, especially when we know WHY it makes the power it makes.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Well, the point is, that different cars have different engines with different configurrations and different injection systems and different valvetrains and different cams and different....wait for it....sizes.

So, in ITA, we have a 4.2 liter AMC, a 3.7 litre Chevy (and Buick sister), a 2.7 litre Ford, a 2.8 litre Pontiac, and a 2.7 litre BMW. ALL, by the way run at less weight than the 944 proposed weight.

I shouldn't be trotting out other cars...it's not about other cars. It's about the 944, but I did it to illustrate the variables involved.

The process is about balancing variables. Weight is one of those variables. If the prescribed weight is unattainable, it thows off the process.

The ITAC is investigating whether the car can or can not come reasonable close to the intended weight. And the guys on the ITAC are bright enough to look at the answers and ask the good questions, like: Total strip? Light hardware? What cage tubes are in? Wheels and tires? Seat? Driver weight? Fuel cell? Method of attaching the cel? And so on.

As for power, when there are well known real world numbers, those are taken into consideration. Again the aim of the process is to class properly. IF we KNOW the car makes more....or less, then we need to take that into consideration, especially when we know WHY it makes the power it makes.
[/b]

You both get the bingo. You have one set of numbers you are using and that is from aguy that is invested in making sure this product wins (good business guy) Maybe the numbers are understated? Maybe they have ot found everything there is to find. Again you have stated the process is no being applied the same and thats all I needed to here.
Andy as far as me being upset for any other reason than the fairness of classification is a pretty cheap shot. As I stated in the begining I was sure the process was not being applied equally and you have validated that thought. The process is now a matter of who is running the ITAC and not a standard that will passed on from ITAC to ITAC as was intended.

Jake in all the examples you are showing they are all push rod engines with piss poor brakes and very small participation numbers...

PS the proactive approach to classing new cars is a completely different argument Andy and you know it. If the process is applied fairly to a new car then the process will work if the model is skewed with one sided data then we will be back to what it was 3 years ago.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So how would you apply the process Joe? 25% for everyone and let the 'car to have' syndrome come back? If so, I will start building my 2150lb ITB 12A RX-7.

The process is being applied fairly and consistantly. Just as it was when Darin was involved. Nothing has changed. REMEMBER, it's a PROCESS, not a formula.

 

[lateapex911]

You both get the bingo. You have one set of numbers you are using and that is from aguy that is invested in making sure this product wins (good business guy) Maybe the numbers are understated? [/b]

Which is counter to good business sense...spending $15K for ONLY 185hp is a tough pill to swallow. IF he was making more, I think he'd be making life a LOT easier on himself by stating that.

Jake in all the examples you are showing they are all push rod engines with piss poor brakes and very small participation numbers... [/b]

The BMW is a 6 cyl. 84 x 81 (stroke vs bore) motor with 2.7 litres, SOHC (no pushrods that I am aware of) with 287mm front vented discs, and the 944 is a 100 x 79 4 cylinder with a huge balance shaft displacing 2.5 litres, and front discs of 283mm.

So it's not really that apples to oranges.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Which is counter to good business sense...spending $15K for ONLY 185hp is a tough pill to swallow. IF he was making more, I think he'd be making life a LOT easier on himself by stating that.
The BMW is a 6 cyl. 84 x 81 (stroke vs bore) motor with 2.7 litres, SOHC (no pushrods that I am aware of) with 287mm front vented discs, and the 944 is a 100 x 79 4 cylinder with a huge balance shaft displacing 2.5 litres, and front discs of 283mm.

So it's not really that apples to oranges.
[/b]

So you got one you feel better? What was the specific reason that theBMW was placed in ITA? If my memory is right the factory HP rating was low and the factory curb weight was high using the process as it was originally meant to be used. And sroyy Jake but you can sell alot more overdogs any day of the week.


BMW spec: 9.0:1 compression 126BHP and factory 2700lbs curb weight. Run the numbers Jake thats a ITA car.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So how would you apply the process Joe? 25% for everyone and let the 'car to have' syndrome come back? If so, I will start building my 2150lb ITB 12A RX-7.

The process is being applied fairly and consistantly. Just as it was when Darin was involved. Nothing has changed. REMEMBER, it's a PROCESS, not a formula. [/b]

Joe?

 

[Joe Harlan]

Joe?
[/b]

As stated before Andy i understand the process has flaws but you guys are tryingto run the comb to fine. I am not going to argue over the same points. comparing a rotory to a piston motor is not apples and apples so don't play that game cause you know I am not that stupid. We are talking piston engines and factory power outputs and the system was never and will never make things a perfect world but it will clearly get them one hell of a bunch better that the E36 vs everything else deal was. Based on 158 stock HP the 944 is in the same boat as the 240sx and while the 240sx may make weight it has to remove better parts to do so.

Done you guys have at it and I will make my case to the CRB as they are the final deciders in this deal. You have admitted the process is not being used equally. The Rotary divider is and has always been different than a piston engine just as it would be if turbos were let into the field.


B. INTENT
It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed. Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well you are wrong Joe. The process is being used fairly and equitably. If you can't see it, fine. I could site the ITA CRX as a piston engine that gains about 35% over stock rated HP...

The CRB is on every ITAC call and they know exactly how the process works and is being applied.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Well you are wrong Joe. The process is being used fairly and equitably. If you can't see it, fine. I could site the ITA CRX as a piston engine that gains about 35% over stock rated HP...

The CRB is on every ITAC call and they know exactly how the process works and is being applied.
[/b]

Yeah I got the feeling we would get to that point.

Again You admitted that the process is not being applied the same. Why would you trot out a 35% gain in the CRX, unless you can provide actual Dyno information in public you are not making a good case. Was the CRX handled under the normal process or was 35% considered on that model only? It is starting to sound like the process is becoming a WAG all over again.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Joe,

I am done with this. I don't understand why you don't get it. The process is applied thusly: we use actualy numbers when we know them, and a 25% estimate when we don't. It is applied consistantly in that fashion. Yes, we don't use the same numbers for every car - and the reasons have been explained to you numerous times.

If you think that piston engines should all get the same % and that rotories should all get another %, then I submit that all that gets you is where we were - overdogs and underdogs. Boooo.

The IT classes have never been more level - and that is because the ITAC/CRB use real data when possible to avoid trouble on the front end.

I realize you don't agree with this philosophy but have yet to hear why any other way would be better. I will let others debate from here but please lay out a better plan as you obviously see flaws in this one.

Done.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

I am done with this. I don't understand why you don't get it. The process is applied thusly: we use actualy numbers when we know them, and a 25% estimate when we don't. It is applied consistantly in that fashion. Yes, we don't use the same numbers for every car - and the reasons have been explained to you numerous times.

If you think that piston engines should all get the same % and that rotories should all get another %, then I submit that all that gets you is where we were - overdogs and underdogs. Boooo.

The IT classes have never been more level - and that is because the ITAC/CRB use real data when possible to avoid trouble on the front end.

I realize you don't agree with this philosophy but have yet to hear why any other way would be better. I will let others debate from here but please lay out a better plan as you obviously see flaws in this one.

Done.
[/b]

Andy, here is the last point. I do get it and have always got it. As I said Data from one source is not adequate. Next nobody has actually shown the 944 can't make weight. And finally when you move the 944 down and realize the great balance ITA once had is now skewded by an overdog will you be able to fix it? The process works if those in charge understand the need to remember to use it responsibly. And BTW just so it is understood I would be arguing this point just as hard if it was the S14 being considered for this same treatment.

I find it interesting the number of ITA cars that are forsale as of late. maybe others see the writing is already on the wall.

Have a happy new year.
Joe

PS. I am plenty capable if disagreeing with some one and still respecting thier efforts.

 

[dickita15]

I got to say Joe I do not understand why you feel using different HP gains for different cars is wrong. We put people in these jobs such as the ITAC do use their best knowledge and judgment. If they know that different engines respond differently to IT mods I fully expect them to use that information in the process. The ITAC uses brake size and suspension design. Do you think that should be the same on all cars as well?

My guess here is that you have a gut feeling that moving the 944 is a bad idea and the attacks on the process are because of that alone rather that any disappointment with how the process has worked overall.

 

[924Guy]

Joe - In response to my request as to just how we would prove, to your satisfaction, that a 944 cannot be brought down to 2575, you said the following:

Second I don't need to see it being built to know a good car or not somebody must have a fully prepped and developed car out there or we are making changes for no specific reason at all. Funny in racing we are forced to prove a negative everytime we ask for a change in classification or modification to the rules.
[/b]

Yet you just again said:

Next nobody has actually shown the 944 can't make weight.
[/b]

I seem to recall COUNTLESS references to Chris Camadella's efforts. Would you dismiss that as "just one car?" I think the basic understanding here is that Chris's racing effort has been unquestionably 10/10ths for quite some time now; I think everyone on this thread would readily agree with that - would you?

If so, then forgetting on-track performance, if even Chris cannot get his car down to 2575, by your own stated terms, you have been proven wrong.

So, Chris - how light did you/can you get your 8V car?

Or have you now conceded the weight point? Seems like your whole focus has shifted to the power rating, which would be consistent with ignoring the lost point.

I was looking over an IT 924S in build yesterday and was reminded of yet another example of why these cars ARE special: most IT cars didn't come from the factory with tubular headers. Not much power gain OR weight savings there... just one more example of why these cars DO require some different perspective.

 

[Joe Harlan]

I got to say Joe I do not understand why you feel using different HP gains for different cars is wrong. We put people in these jobs such as the ITAC do use their best knowledge and judgment. If they know that different engines respond differently to IT mods I fully expect them to use that information in the process. The ITAC uses brake size and suspension design. Do you think that should be the same on all cars as well?

My guess here is that you have a gut feeling that moving the 944 is a bad idea and the attacks on the process are because of that alone rather that any disappointment with how the process has worked overall.
[/b]

Dick, I am fully aware of how the process works since I had a hand in it in the begining and I fully understand that parts are subjective at best. The thing that I am disappointed in is that the procress is now being used in a way it was promised it would not be....(full on competition adjustment) That is not what the process was designed to do. It was designed more with new classifications in mind and to correct large mistakes in classifiction in the past.

Vaughn, please I am not ignoring Chris's build but again he is running a 944S. As far as tublar headers from the factory I will be these car will respond to a better design as well as any other car. The car is clearly closer to an S car than a A car and should remain there. And Vaughn I have not conceded the weight issue nobody has come here and indicated they have had a body down to a raw tub and stripped every last bit of legal weight off it, Nobody has shown they are running the lighest exhaust or the lightest wheels possible. Nobody has shown they are running 15" inch wheels instead of 16" wheels to try to get to weight. I think you will find many other models that have the same issues if not fully prepared to the maximum extent of the rules. If we don't want to consider stripping as part of full development then make a rule that says undercoating and sound material must remain. Until then it is part of the effort of building an IT car.

Thanks for the time but I am done arguing here.
Joe

 

[924Guy]

Yeah, but last I heard Chris's last car WAS an 8v non-S 944.

Sure, the stock header can be improved on - but only slightly, it's not the same as dumping a stock, cast iron, log-style manifold as found on most IT cars.

I would be shocked to hear of ANYONE running a 944 using 16" wheels - why even go there. Many run stock 15" Fuchs forged rims, they're about 12lbs each - good luck beating that with aftermarket stuff.

I think a lot of the stuff you're calling out here are pretty obvious things to check off the list during a build... please, give us just a little credit for ingenuity...

FWIW yes my undercoating and all other insulation and padding is gone excepting only the undercoating on the underside of the floorpan between the wheel wells:

Is that clearer?

 

[Joe Harlan]

Yeah, but last I heard Chris's last car WAS an 8v non-S 944.

Sure, the stock header can be improved on - but only slightly, it's not the same as dumping a stock, cast iron, log-style manifold as found on most IT cars.

I would be shocked to hear of ANYONE running a 944 using 16" wheels - why even go there. Many run stock 15" Fuchs forged rims, they're about 12lbs each - good luck beating that with aftermarket stuff.

I think a lot of the stuff you're calling out here are pretty obvious things to check off the list during a build... please, give us just a little credit for ingenuity...

FWIW yes my undercoating and all other insulation and padding is gone excepting only the undercoating on the underside of the floorpan between the wheel wells:

Is that clearer?
[/b]

c. Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed. They may be installed in the original instrument(s) location

Still running the stock tank? Carbon Seat? Undecoating is heavy. I know it seems petty but these are all issues other cars are doing to ge to weight. Whaat does your car weigh as it sits WO driver?

BTW The photos I have seen of Chris's car it is prepared well but I don't see a fuel cell I do see a big muffler and Stock Cookie cutter wheels. I have no idea if any of these things are already changed or there is no advantage to changing them and in no way mean any disrespect to the effort.

The biggest point is that an example of a stripped and dipped raw chassis has not appeared yet.

 

[924Guy]

As you can see, I have worked-over my gauges. I just do it in such a way that it looks stock - well, apart from the data system. Speedo and tach are gone. Oh, yeah, I guess I still could get rid of that cigarette lighter, lose a few ounces.

Stock tank - yes, mine is smaller than a 944 BTW.

Aluminum (Kirkey) seat; have an OMP composite, but it's no lighter than the Kirkey.

My car is 2450 without driver or ballast, as mentioned.

 

[Joe Harlan]

As you can see, I have worked-over my gauges. I just do it in such a way that it looks stock - well, apart from the data system. Speedo and tach are gone. Oh, yeah, I guess I still could get rid of that cigarette lighter, lose a few ounces.

Stock tank - yes, mine is smaller than a 944 BTW.

Aluminum (Kirkey) seat; have an OMP composite, but it's no lighter than the Kirkey.

My car is 2450 without driver or ballast, as mentioned.
[/b]

So 2650 with the average SCCA driver. That looks like 75 lbs to get to 2575. Looks doable. How much does the rubber spoiler weigh? + the undercoat that you say is still there. like about 40 net loss with 8 gal cell maybe another 25 lbs in stripping and repaint from bare metal 5 lbs in the fire bottle. Windows still in the doors?

Whats your exhaust like? Lot of weight is missed in the exhaust. You getting my point. It won't be easy but the weight is there. You are right your not gonna get it 20lbs at a time but it can be found.