Adam Richman

Bill, I hear ya but . Looking at the classifications, I think the DOHC Neon is in better shape in ITS than ITA personally, provided I am reading this right:

ITS DOHC 95-96 Neon @ 2400 lbs.
- ITA DOHC 95-99 Neon @ 2650 lbs.

If you added the same percentage weight gain to the 944 8v to move to ITA, you are talking what? 2985 lbs.? Not to be a schmuck but it actually creates more issues w/ the A-arms I'd think. On the 325 ES, I *thought* the real issue w/ that car is the cam. Isn't that the real limiting factor (not single vs. dual cam - the E30 325i is a SOHC and its still in ITS, correctly IMO). I am sure there are some BMW folks that know the differences far better than I on this though.

On the S, I don't see why a rejection of the JimFab/Fabcar/etc ... arms would preclude a new request to allow the 944S to run the early offset front (or complete if necessary) supsension (technically speaking, an 88 CRX can run 90-91 front/rear brakes even though the 88 CRX has passive rear steer and the 89-91 do not - I have an 89 so I am not certain - does not affect me - of the legality but that is my understanding). It [944S] seems like a grey issue as the chassis are no different (unless its a VIN thing) to my knowledge and if the steel arms bend vs. aluminum arms breaking, it may be a viable request. Hell, in many ways, this would be an advantage from my perspective as there are far more lightweight OE 15"-16" wheels for this suspension than the latter (to my knowledge). I know folks that have swapped from the early to the latter [street cars], I don't see why this would be problematic going the other way (aside from rules issues).

btw (ITS SOHC 95-96 Neon @ 2300 lbs.
- ITA SOHC 95-99 Neon @ 2450 lbs.)


Steve in FL, hehehe, I ain't much of an auto-xer but you do know where a 944-S goes if Street Prepared right? And it doesn't get much better in B Stock.

Kurt R

OK, I'll chime in here. First, I just bought the 944 this winter, and I haven't run one lap in it yet. So, I'm not an ITS 944 runner. But I am a 16 year member of SCCA, and I have run IT cars in the past.

Here's the way I see the request: You are specifically asking to replace a production suspension part with a non production part. Safety or not, this is unprecedented in IT. If it was approved, then that would open up every other competitor to ask for parts. Honda, Chrysler, or VW hubs? It's a safety issue. The hub breaks, the rotor wobbles, pushes the pads back into the caliper, and you have no brakes on the first couple pumps of the pedal. If you're lucky. If you're not, the shaft of the CV breaks too, the wheel comes off, and you go for a big ride, sometimes not always right side up. But I digress. Assume that's approved too, then what's next? Stronger transmissions in Miatas? It's a safety issue. Someone might run into the back of my car if I lose power. It would never end.

As far as reclassification, not everyone can run at the front of the pack. Currently there is no provision for "competition adjustments" in IT, so there is no way you can make all cars equal. If you don't like running mid pack, sell the 944 and build a 944s. Oh, you are. If it doesn't prove fast enough, get an RX7, or a BMW. How do you think the other ITA competitors would feel if the 944 (or the Sentra SE-R for that matter) start winning every race they enter? If you can show recent race results where ITS and ITA cars run together, and your 944 consistantly finishes either just ahead or just behind the front running ITA cars, then maybe the ITAC will give more consideration to your proposal. From Geo's hints above, and the latest Fastrack, sounds like maybe there is going to be a realignment of IT classes. Maybe they'll make an ITD class.

Geo

Well Bill, despite "knowing" me on-line for some time and despite talking on the phone, you still apparently don't know me very well.

Well Bill, you've received answers from two other IT participants who have told you pretty much the same thing I have. You can go in search of pity elsewhere and find it I'm sure.

Number one, as has already been pointed out, I am but one voice for starters. Furthermore I told you why it wouldn't fly because we see special requests like this all the time and they get rejected for similar reasons. I'm being honest with you and you don't like it. Don't shoot the bloody messenger.

Well Bill, I told you the vote was unanamous. Even the other 944 driver on the ITAC voted against it for the same reason everyone else did. Do you think that I'm really that powerful on the committee? Do you really think I'm out to screw the 944 and their drivers? Come on Bill. This is not befitting you.

OK Bill, now you are making this personal. Worse, you are calling into question my honor. This is pretty low, no matter how hurt you feel. You've lost ALL my respect and owe me an apology. I value nothing more than my honor. Hell, if I was dishonorable I'd argue for the custom fabbed arms.

Now, let's get down to cases, shall we?

For the record, the car belongs to one of my partners in NISsport, Grover Pickering. I last raced it in late November. Since then it has been undergoing a coversion to E Production. That's right. I will never be racing this car again in IT, and probably never racing it again at all. I just picked up the tubing bender from Grover yesterday so I can finish the cage in my car, and it will be completed this year. There are a number of reasons my car has not been completed before this, most of which are none of your business. But to reiterate, this car won't be raced in IT again and I probably won't ever race it again.

Also, the request for moving the NX2000 and the Sentra SE-R to ITA came from Greg Amy. There was also a request to move the Neons in the same batch of letters. FWIW, most people agree with this move, even those in ITA who will have to contend against these cars.

What reeks Bill is your attack on me and on my honor. I have given you honest and candid answers. You don't like them so you try to arrange a pity party and attack my honor. That is really low class Bill. I'm really surprised. I would never have expected it of you.

FWIW, I feel there is a good case for moving the 8v 944 to ITA. The reason I feel this way is because it has damned near the exact same specs at the SOHC ITA Nissan 240SX. In fact, the 240SX is classified in ITA at a weight a fair bit lower than the 944 in ITS. However, there is the sticky situation of the 944 still being a winner in ITS. The other 944 driver on the ITAC is opposed to such a move because the car is still an occasional winner in ITS and also because there are so few that are truly fully developed to the extent of the rules. As I already stated, that's a hard argument to overcome. But again you attack me.

Lastly, I suggested writing another request to move the 8v 944. There are strategic decisions being made and considered for IT at this time and the time may be right to try it again. I have only one vote on the committee, so I cannot make a ruling. If the committe, the Club Racing Board, and the Board of Directors feel it's the right move for the current realities in IT, it will happen. If not, it won't.

924RACR

You'd be amazed what can be argued on the basis of safety... I recall an argument in another forum from a VERY competitive, front-running ITA CRX driver that remote-reservoir 4-way adjustable shocks are a safety item (this before they were outlawed). Pretty funny - we gave him credit simply for having the ***** to try to make the argument, knowing it was laughable!

From another perspective... why are Hwords, Wabbits, and all the other front-drivers having to replace their wheel bearings all the time? Well, of course, it's because they're lowering them and running big sticky race tires; increased lateral loadings and possible reduced efficiency of the CV's (due to driveshaft possibly being incorrect for the revised suspension geometry once substantially lowered) put strain on the bearings that they're not designed for.

OTOH, why are 944 aluminum a-arms breaking? I seem to recall hearing some time back that it was a result of balljoints binding due to lowered suspensions - don't lower the car excessively, you'll be in much better shape and far less likely to fail. In fact, I thought that was in a tech bulletin from Porsche - though I could be wrong, since I didn't pay that much attention, being as how the issue doesn't concern me.

If anything, the most reasonable request here would be the suggestion to propose using the earlier steel a-arms to the CRB, if they could be interchanged - at least those are production parts!

Just my thoughts...

Geo

The interesting thing here about balljoint binding is that if this is indeed the reason, it's a design flaw from the Holy Porsche Engineers. Or it is occuring because people are installing shorter body dampers that allow more suspension travel (beyond the operating range of the balljoints).

Why do I say this? Because even a non-lowered car can still swing through the full motion of the suspension. If, within the full motion of the suspension, the balljoints can bind, somebody (actually several I'm sure) at Porsche made a boo-boo. If there is more suspension travel due to the use of short body dampers, well, bad re-engineering on the part of the racer.

In both cases the binding can be greatly mitigated by using higher rate front springs, effectively limiting the suspension travel if the rate is high enough, although bottoming, and thus balljoint bind, can still occur.

924RACR

What's this? German engineers making mistakes??? Impossible!!! It's beyond reason! I refuse to believe it!!!

(for those who don't know, I work for a certain well-known German automotive company... I'll let you draw your own conclusions about how much time I spend cleaning up poorly-engineered products...)

howie

In both cases the binding can be greatly mitigated by using higher rate front springs, effectively limiting the suspension travel if the rate is high enough, although bottoming, and thus balljoint bind, can still occur.


What spring rate do you need to limit the travel in susp. to avoid binding. I run a 550 lb spring in the front of an '86 951. That's more than 3 times stock. On the down hill of LRP I get a clunk at the base. I've inspected the joint and it appears fine. But. concerning!!


Other than replacement what preventative maint. can be done??

Bill L Seifert

Geo,

This whole a arm thing started many years ago, with the old Firehawk series, IMSA, I believe, required different a arms because of breakage of the stock arms.\. FabCar built some and they were required for all 944's running in IMSA. That eventually worked itself out, because only modern cars run that series, Whatever it's called now." 944's no longer run there. PCA also ok's them, even for their Stock Class cars.

You ask if I think you are out to screw 944's and their drivers. No, I do not, what I do think is that you just automatically turn down requests, which in 90% of the cases is probably the correct thing to do. The problem here is there is a real problem. We are lucky, in that most of us 944 drivers probably don't push the cars like the old Firehawk guys did. But in series where the cars are common, especially 951's, there are lots of a arms break. At a NASA race at Putnam, I was told that 2 broke in one weekend. But the main point is that there is no performance advantage, so who the heck cares. If something causes a dangerous situation on ANY CAR, then figure out how to do a fix, without a performance advantage. But, I have hacked you off so much now, that even if you heard it was dangerous from a burning bush, you would turn it down. I got several private messages, and one guy said I should just paint them black and run them. You know, he is probably right. Two weeks ago at St Louis, one of the BMWis's that beat me had no window glass, or elect motors, or anything in the drivers door. But his NASCAR bars did not extend into the door. I believe that is illegal. But I didn't protest. So I doubt if many people would protest the aftermarket a arms, if I had them The only place to get caught would be at races like the ARRC. I couldn't finish in the top three at the ARRC if they let me run a 944 Turbo S, so what are my chances of getting caught. But then again I don't like to do anything illegal.

You state it is hard to move the 944 to A because it is winning. Most of the wins I have seen is in Podunk, Tennessee, or some such place, where there is little competition. If you go to the ARRC, argueably the biggest IT race in the country, they do terrible. I have never raced on the West Coast, so I can't speak for there.

About an apology; you aint getting one. All I did was mention two facts. Fact one- you race a 1991 Sentra SE-R. Fact two- that car was moved from ITS to ITA. Those are facts, if pointing them out makes you uncomfortable, then that's just too bad. I don't need or want your respect! Remember you would be dishonorable by voting for my request, so by that logic, my request was dishonorable.

As far as requesting to move them to ITA again, SCCA got our request once, I ain't going to beg.

Bill

FormulaOne10

Not to hijack this, but there was already some mention of autocross classification...

What the hell is with the 944S in ASP!?!? Honestly how is it supposed to be competitive there? I just don't understand how it is in the same class as a Z06 Corvette or a 996tt.

This all comes back to the SCCA problem (which PCA doesn't really have) of analyzing a huge number of makes and models and modifications. Because of this there are certainly going to be issues that aren't totally fair (as in my case too). It sucks but it's not exactly new to automotive competition. Best I can do on my end is to write and lobby my case...but its truly in their hands.

Professor Helmüt Tester

The push to move the '2 liter and under' cars out of ITS has been going on for at least 6 years, since the first of the SSB & SSC cars dropped into IT after their useful life as Showroom Stock cars (5 years) expired. That was long before George had ever even heard of the ITAC. Yeah...Sentra SE-R's and 4-door Neons running against 2nd gen RX7's and Porker 944's. Nat'l Comp. Board (now the CRB) did't want to create 'overdogs', but never corrected the 'underdog' problem, either. It's been a continuing effort on the part of all those SS owners to get this done. It just didn't happen last month. Your inference sucks, Bill. If you knew your history better, you'd be a little more discreet.

There is a stated class philosophy for each SCCA class right in the front of the each section of the GCR. Read it, and you'll understand what each class is about. IT is about running stock pieces on cars. Stock engines, stock engine controls, stock suspension pieces.

If you don't like it, there is always GT. Porker 944 had the GTwhatever class pole last year at the Runoffs. You can run any suspension arms you want in GT.

If you're racing and losing to an IT car that isn't in compliance with the class rules, then it's YOUR fault, if you do nothing. Protest it. Only costs you $25, which you will get back if the protest is reasonably well-founded. Don't expect the Tech staff or the Stewards to find it, as there are 300+ cars in the GCR and they can't be knowledgable in every area. Ignore the violations you see, and YOU'RE the chump.

Bill L Seifert

To FormulaOne10

I don't think you are trying to Hijac this thread. I am talking about SCCA, and their feelings about Porsche. For the most part I think that they do not want Porsche to win, and will do everything to keep them from doing so. Then just when I think that, they will approve the GT3 for T1, which blows my theory. I agree with you on the 944S in ASP, but I don't have a dog in that hunt, cause I am a terrible autocrosser. Anyway back to SCCA and Porsche. Look at the Runoffs. Show me a Porsche that does well. But, then again that 944S in GT2 blows them away. Now this is going to be a personal opinion, BUT!!!I really think that SCCA usually classifies Porsche, so they have little chance. I think this comes from the fact that Porsche wins with less horsepower. So I think SCCA overreacts. Again folks, That is a personal opinion, and I am not accusing Geo of anything, this time.

Anyway, from here on out, I am not going to comment on this thread any more. Ya'all have heard most everything I have to say on the subject. (Whew, says Geo) I still want everyone's opinion, and I will read it at least every day, til it dies. So KEEP HAMMERING ON ME FOLKS, I need the PITY, or ANGER, as the case may be.

Bill

PedalFaster

A long time ago, the 944S was put in ASP back when that was where it belonged. Then ASP got a lot faster, but the 944 didn't. No one complained because no one was running the car.

I've seen a SAC / SEB member (forget which one) post on another forum explicitly stating that they generally don't have the time proactively review classifications that have aged badly, such as this one. Writing a well thought-out letter and getting several other people to do the same could prompt them to review their decision, as no one could reasonably argue that the 944S still belongs in ASP. Alleging an evil anti-Porsche conspiracy as Bill is doing, on the other hand, obviously won't accomplish anything other than trigger either guffaws or eye-rolling from the thirteen people who trophied in Porsches at last year's Solo II Nationals.

Incidentally, Bill, I completely agree with Geo on his assessment of your behavior -- in my opinion you're completely out of line by alleging that he's volunteering his time and efforts not to help the membership, but rather to manipulate the rules system for his own gain. The fact that you won't acknowledge this or offer an apology reflects very poorly on your character.

Steve

Adam Richman

Before this goes down the road of marque-pity, ask guys of any brand and they'll tell you the SCCA hates their car manufacturer. Ironically, you can find examples to the contrary everywhere.

For every spec line in the GCR for a 944 8v in ITS there is an FProd 914.
For every line in the GCR for a 3G Integra LS in ITS, there is a 2G Integra RS in ITA.
For every spec line in the GCR for a ITA MR-2, there is an ITB Celica.
For every spec line in the GCR for a 12A RX7 in ITA, there is an ITA Miata.
For every spec line in the GCR for a ITB ousted Accord, there is an ITA 2G CRX Si.

The SCCA does not hate Porsche any more than it hates Nissan, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, Chrysler/Plymoth/Dodge. Actually, they must love all of 'em cause they go through a lot of effort to make sure every marque can be represented to some degree or another.

On the runoffs note; I have been very interested in 914 1.8L for FP for a while now and from the folks I talk with, there is a FP 914 beast or two on the west coast that simply don't have the budget to come to Mid-Ohio. To this, picking up the Dec. 2003 SportsCar, Porsche has 10 wins in FP (3rd overall behind MG and Austin-Healey). In an October 2002 SportsCar, they were tied for 2nd in FP with Triumph (6) behind MG (15) after 51 races (sorry can't find a December from '02).

About the ASP 944-S, I am not complaining about it. I found it a funny contrast to the GT3 being classed there. I made some foolish decisions in buying my first car to become a racecar, I made some better ones in choosing the 2nd. A little research and looking at race results went a long way.

Bill L Seifert

Steve

I guess I will have to answer you. That is twice you have accused me of calling the SCCA evil. Please show me where I said that. Is it your opinion that if anyone has any problem with an SCCA decision, then he is calling them evil. I gave two facts, and a whole lot of opinion. The opinions were put there to get responses, which it has, both on the thread and in private messages. Thats what I wanted, and got in spades. I did not call him any names, the thing that upset him was me pointing out the fact that he said he raced a Nissan SER, and that it was moved from ITS to ITA.

Anyway, if you have anything else to say to me why not email me directly at BillLSeifert@aol.com

Bill Seifert

Professor Helmüt Tester

Please grow some spine, Bill.

You took a nasty inferential swipe at somebody which you can't defend. Then you claim that you're out of this thread, and will consider further discussions via private email.

You're all the things I love about the web, Bill.