n wright Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Interesting discussion. My only issue here is the cage being welded. I really don't think it is a performance advantage. It definetly can't be quantified in any precise manner with the resources we have. I think any percieved performance advantage is purely psychological. My reasons for doing it to the spec car under construction is the following: 1-It's allowed with POC/PCA for safety reasons 2-Reputible cage builders and shops advise it for unibody cars for safety reasons 3-My turbo has it and i like it (I know this reason is purely psychological!) 4-If you are building a cage there is no extra expense to weld a few more seams 5-I really believe a strut tower brace has a bigger impact on handling with this package and you can at least quantify the cost of it. 6-I WANT TO BE LEGAL SO I CAN CLAIM ANY FINISHING SPOT I MIGHT GET WITH YOU GUYS!!! I hope it is allowed as it is with POC and PCA. It's simply another item that will make crossover easier and more desirable for those who have built their cages like this. ROCK ON! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg f Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 One of the gentlemen I work with on the ALMS weekends was a development engineer who worked with the 944S2 and 968 cars. You can't actually count the entire frontal area of the mirror because it is partially shrouded by the windshield blast. He gave me that figure of 3 hp at 130KPH. The 968 mirrors are 25% more efficient than the " flag" mirrors with both mirrors having the same viewable area. Personally, I love my fully functional heated, power mirrors. When I get bored in pre-grid I can scope my surroundings with the power mirrors! Greg F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg f Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Oh, 1 last thing. I think you should give strong consideration to changing 11.2 to just making " lightening of any part of the rotating assembly is not allowed". The reason for this is every crank and flywheel has been balanced from Porsche, so how would you tell if someone had re-balanced during a rebuild? They all have balancing holes anyway, how close they are balanced is another matter. Balancing is cheap compared to lightening those components. Greg F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec-944#70 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Good input Greg!! If the 968 mirrors are 25% more efficient, and the stock ones took 3 HP at 100 MPH then 25% off that would be less than 1 HP?? Lets move on to important issues!! I have stock mirrors and plan on keeping them at least untill they break off or I repaint the car. Hopefully neither will happen soon. I just want all the cars to follow whatever rules we have in place and the others can race but not for points. Directors; be tough on the infractions. Document in log book and ensure it's fixed by the next event. Rather than use the word "intent" lets just spell it out. To some intent may mean build a cheap race car and have fun, some intent may mean win at all costs, and some intent may mean build a cool looking race car and just have fun, and others may feel intent is stay as stock as possible. If you want a true "Spec" class then everything should be spelled out. What shocks to use, spring rates, size of torsions, manufactur of chips etc. We have a set of rules with tons of variables to choose from so we can make our cars as we wish. Some like it stiff others don't. Some look to squeeze every HP out of the motor others stay with good used motors and just run the heck out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uberklasse Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Just getting on...this is good stuff. Neal mentioned earlier poly bushings, what would these be for? I am just trying to learn. 1- Short Shifters : I say no. Or like Dylan said name a spec short shift replacement. I just went through having an additional car being built(not totally) and told him not to touch the shifter, even though I could have had done for free! 2- Welding Cages to A/B pillars. Wasn't allowed when built, why now. Again, selfish point, but car I just picked up is 8 point. I plan on removing and rewelding, but if I just hold out maybe we will have 8 point OR does welding to A-B pillars constitute 8 point? 3- Mirrors - stock is cool. Never realized it would make a difference until it was pointed out here. I will figure out a way to put my passenger side on back on. Don't want to get a lucky podium with a full field and have someone complain. How much by the way could we get used ones for? Let's put the fines and the door prizes into a MIRROR pool. Someone doesn't have mirrors, instead of winning an oil filter they could win mirrors? 4- Flywheel. Was said before, but was never allowed in the rules, whythe confusion? This one would piss me off it is was allowed. Again I just had a rubber disc put back in when the car I picked up had a shattered one. I could have had a machined and lightened flywheel that came out of a NorCal ITS 944 car....I didn't though due to the rules! 5- Accusumps - don't know much about them, but was told they only help in reliability. If that;s the case I say allow them. 6- Cut off. I have one, but am indifferent. It's only safety so it should be encouraged. Guys like Jason B should still be able to run without it though! 7- Cooling. I would think the hardwired fans do the trick, but know from my own problems this isn't a fun area. Whatever we could do to help with reliability again is my vote. It was mentioned earlier the "shops" vs. the shade tree mechanics. I have tried both and its a tough balance IMO. The rules should always take safety and then reliability into consideration. It's frustrating to have 50-75% of the 944's out of a weekend due to mechanical and not driver problems. Not only does it bum our guys out, but will keep new guys from getting involved! THIS is a good discussion and how our posts should be! Good Job everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944-Spec#94 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Joe, Excellent analysis with the boxes. Does the welding the cage to the pillars and the resulting stiffening of the chasis translate into a performance advantage that would offset the safety advantages? I would imagine this would be very tough to quantify. Not challenging your response just pondering the subject. Neal, Fair question. I don't have the answer as to how much a stiffened chassis will improve performance. No matter the number the "perception" of advantage is there. I really don't feel they impact saftey very much however. I believe a good cage welded correctly, in the right 6 (or places that is also well designed is no safer attached to A & B pillars. In my mind the expect the cage to be able to carry 90% of roll over loads. The SCCA has been requireing cages with 6 or 8 attachments for many many years. I don't know that A & B pillar welding has proven to be safer. I know some SCCA Speed Touring and GT Cars use large A piller supports. My feeling is that these are present to stiffen the chassis. What about Cup cars. They come with factory cages. How are they done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944-Spec#94 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 7. Add the rules that are needed. "... Add fuel regulators must be stock for the year of motor. Injectors must be stock for the year of motor. Eric, I disagee on this point as it quite easy to build a bastard motor. A Block from one year in a chassis from another year with a head from another year and injection from yet another. Easy to do when getting parts from the junkyard or parts cars. There is nothig to show that there is a best combo of parts from different years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec-944#70 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 How about making sure then that the regulators and injectors are stock N/A peices. I've herd (not in our groups) people putting Turbo injectors and regulators to increase fuel presure/flow. Like I said I have NOT herd of anyone in our groups doing this I just know it's possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n wright Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Joe, Just spoke with a shop owner who owns and races a 1997 factory 911. He confirmed the cage is tabbed with welds in some areas and straight welded from the bar to the pillars in others. He said it does not stiffen the chassis and the purpose od the Welding on the A-Pillars is to prevent the windshied from collapsing inward in the event of a crash. All welding to the pillars is for safety from the factory. As I've stated, we do not go through the firewall on these cars which is where any measurable stiffening would occour. It is for this reason that the POC imposes points for going through the firewall. What you do around the driver is not considered or assessed points. If we impose penalties for "perceived" advantages vs real advantages then we are in trouble. Especially since the "perceived" advantage was done strickly for the purpose of safety and there is absolutely no way to measure the "perceived" advantage. It is clear this issue is allowed in every other reputible club. So why not this one?? It's really about safety. I would hate to see this group keep me and at least two other cars (one is owned by the owner of Black Forest in San Diego) out of the series over this issue. The initial reason, according to Timmy, for outlawing the welding was additional cost and had nothing to do with stiffening. Well, at least in my case, it cost absolutely $0.00 to weld and make the cockpit safer. I'm sure it would not have cost anyone else who put in a custom cage any more either. And again, the strut tower brace does stiffen the chassis and does cost money. If you're concerned cost or stiffening then get rid of the brace because it does both. I think it would be a real loss to the group if a safety item that is allowed in every other club is not workable here. Especially since the directors are looking for racers to be able to cross over easily. You can't undo this one for the weekend. I hope the "perception" does not turn into reality on this issue. Because it is just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec-944#70 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I was surprised my cage was not welded as it was in my Turbo. If you have a cage custom built for added safty as the bolt in ones suck. They have large gaps everywhere and cut off alot of usable space. Sure they help but I'd rather have my cage in a roll than one of the others. If it's money you're trying to save then make the "bolt-in" cage the Spec cage and not allow anything else. We can make this fair by doing this. Those with bolt in vages can have lightened flywheel and those with welded cages to the a/b pillar cannot. Does that make it equal? ( I know you said no sarcasm Tim but I couldn't resist) Is this really worth debating? I think it's ranks right there with the mirrors!! It's a non issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeanutinCA Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Sorry, but I'm not convinced because Bob says it's not an advantage, because I've heard just as many say it is an advantage? Now, how much of an advantage? I asked some people, they said measurable, but maybe a tenth? Ok not much. But what they did say was that it would make the body more tuneable to your setup changes, more respinsive to them. It would also cost for example, from $100 for the cheap a$$ job to $400 for a nice job. You did say Neil it would cost people building custom cages zero to do? Maybe if the rules had allowed it then? But then didn't, so now we have to go back and pay to install? Hey, if you wanted to flip the bill! I guess I am little less concerned about it after talking to my cage guy. But who knows, that's just another "opinion". It's another item that's not quantifiable? Tough one. P.Dilly. p.s. He did say it was safer, but for differing reasons to above. He said it would be beneficial in a multiple rollover. He said the roof after the first time over can actually start to beat down on the cage. Personally, I can't see it doing that much, but then again, when was I ever in a position to test it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n wright Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Dear P. Dilly "Hey, if you wanted to flip the bill!" There will be no such flipping around here. I don't have any protection for that. But if I do flip my spec racer I'm sure I'll be protected. "Bob" said I'd be physically fine in the event of a multiple roll over with the welded pilars. He offered no such performance guarantees to prevent the emotional injury in the event of getting rolled over on track by "P Dilly" Come on now. The car will likely be making 185 SHP (steering wheel power) I need the protection with the type of velocity that will happening. Lets conform to the safety allowance of EVERY OTHER CLUB and argue real performance issues. "Bob" says keep it real! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeanutinCA Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Come on now. The car will likely be making 185 SHP (steering wheel power) I need the protection with the type of velocity that will happening. Oh no, the infamous SHP (steering wheel horse power). I am less against it, having spoken to my cage guy (myself, can't speak for others). But, I wouldn't promote it as a non-performance issue, when enough people pay the extra bucks for it. But they perhaps spend the extra bucks on a 50/50 that it improves chassis stiffness AND is safer. It's like the mirrors, I'm sure it's not a huge difference, so either way, in or out. But lets NOT try to argue that it's not a performance gain. Remember, with 5 guys qualifying within 3 tenths, every tenth counts doesn't it! So what I'm trying to say is, personally, I would receive ideas better if they were argued for exactly what they are. Welding cages is performance AND safety orientated. Mirrors are performance AND aesthetically enhancing. Now THAT'S keepin' it real. P.Dilly, keepin' it real! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n wright Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 P. Dilly, Come on now, let's keep it light. I expected one of your snappy and clever responses. I love those from you. But seriously, I sincerely do not think there is any difference in performance between a 6pt welded cage and the same 6pt welded cage that is attached to the pillars. If there is a difference in stiffening it is the change from a bolt-in to a welded cage. Has to be, just look attachment points. Floor pan and fender wells vs. frame rails. That is what I believe. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeanutinCA Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Neil, sorry if it came off the wrong way. I'm nothing but cool with it all. I was just meaning, opinion a) is no enhancement, opinion b) says is an enhancement. BOTH said yes to safety. I'm just listing the facts. Nobody can prove it does add benefit, but nobody can prove that it doesn't. So it's kind of tough to argue on those merits. The oringal merit, which I think you mentioned, was the cost. It was denied due to cost and I think that is a legit point. Because it costs about the same after the fact as say a "good" short shift setup (parts and labor). The problem is, we are flip flopping on why things are allowed or not allowed depending on whether the people with the power and voices want them or not. Yes on flywheels, even though they cost money. Well, it was to include others. That's great on merit, terrible on people who followed the rules to the letter. How about this. Why don't we as the "drivers" in the series, have a list of items up for consideration and vote. Isn't that the true fair way of doing it? Work as a team, not as a dictatorship (exaggeration I know). And Neil, I was just debating with you on a good cop bad cop basis. You being bad cop of course, your bigger than me! And I'm prettier. I was a little against it due to the age old, "it costs money" and "wasn't allowed in the past". But, I'll be the first one out to do it if approved. DOH the canundrum, that just shows there is the perception then that you (I) have to spend money to keep up? It's tough guys. I have to say, tim and Steve have a tough job of pleasing all. My opinion, cages and mirrors, less of an issue. Flywheels, more of an issue. How do you add hp to a 911? Lighten the flywheel so the engine can rev up easier? Is that a correct statement? Like I said, it's a tough one. Good luck guys. P.Dilly. Happy as the next guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n wright Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 If cost is the real issue then weld in's should have never been allowed. Last time I checked I could have bought an Autopower bolt in for about $650.00 or so. The weld in is valued at around $2000.00. Wow, that's a lot of entry fees and tires! If you go to the expense of putting in a custom cage then finish the job by tabbing and welding. Porsche factory does it and it works fine for every other organization I'm confident the powers that be will do what's best for all. If it is legal in NASA then I'll play. If not then I'll play with POC/PCA/SCCA/TCRA where it's a non-issue. It's silly to continue on with this item. So I won't, enough said from me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec-944#70 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 If we're talking about merging the rules to include others then remember the Spec class in the POC will not allow lightened flywheels in our class, they allow any mirror as our old rules did, they allow welded pillars, electric cutoff required, improvements to reliability-esthetics-access to systems-safty are allowed, stock radiators only, added oil cooling and front facia venting for cooler, CR at 11:1. So now with our changes all NASA cars will not be able to run for points in the POC. Remeber that we got the POC to add this class with basically our rules just worded a bit better and allowing the things that don't matter. Now if people make changes to the cars to get an edge in NASA they may put themselves in V5 in the POC. That is why I'm keeping my car as is so I can play in both. I may never podium but thats O.K. It leaves me the flexability to choose any venues I want. POC will hit Laguna, Vegas, Thunder Hill and Infinion this year, beside the normal So. Cal venues. Just remember that lightening the flywheel will not be O.K. in the POC for 2005. We can talk about it for next year if we have too but I don't see the need yet. Also the way the rules were written in the POC any NASA car could run there. Now that's not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944-Spec#94 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Just remember the Lighten flywheel are still not legal. A penalty is applied. So how about something a little different. Flywheels must remain stock. Certain Cars may be grandfathered in at minimum weight penaty of 50lbs. Flyhweels in these cars must be declared and approved buy the regional director. Regional director may increase the weight penalty in the spirit of competitiveness. What this does is to allow these existing cars with light flywheels, but no make it open to all. It also allows us to allow some cars that have them to be legal. If for some reason it seems 50lbs is not enough to compenstate then penalty may be increased. So bottomline is for certain cars we will let it go with a minor penalty. Gain too much from it however and we will add to that penalty to ensure it is not prividing you an advantage. Guys, Simply put it gets messy since we know we have cars with light flywheels around and in other series. Since this is at the Series Director's discression Tim may not allow any So-Cal cars to have lightweight flywheels. Steve may allow cars xx and xx to have them since they have for a long time or are "trying out 944-spec" If it becomes a "problem" then he can incrase they weight 100lbs to keep the balance. So cleary having a light flywheel is not the "in thing" to have. You need director approval and the weight penalty may incrase if do too good. Nope who would want one, but If I have one at least I "Can Race" and have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg f Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Do not use a factory Porsche Matter cage as an example for these cars! In Europe the FIA rules allow a tube wall thickness of .065". The cage MUST be welded to the unibody in order to pass the RAC requirements that are used by FIA and ACO. I will also add that they are not safe! Ask Chris Cervelli, I think he is in the SW somewhere. Ask him about the 97 RSR cage that he broke in two at Road Atlanta. The idea in Europe is that the entire car is sacrificed to somewhat protect the occupant(s). Use the SCCA IT regs, they are well thought out and proven over and over to be safe. They do not allow front A pillar attachments, but will allow a B pillar, bolt in attachement. I will go out on a limb here and disagree with some of the group and say that it is impossible to spend too much money on a roll cage. A bolt in cage that mounts in the car by drilling holes in the sheetmetal floor is a joke. We refer to those as " Mousetraps ". If you do have a hard roll over it will just punch the legs through the floor. It makes me a little crazy to listen to people talk about something as important as a cage or helmet like they were shopping for the lowest priced groceries or something. The way I see it every dollar you spend now on safety gear is $10,000 you won"t have to spend later at the Hospital....Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944-spec#09 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Ok GUys I agree with the arguement that we should discorage the lightened flywheel, especially in new cars. So how about if we compromise and increase the penalty to 75 lb. I don't think it will be practical to "grandfather" only certain cars. What if the car is badly damaged and rebuilt (eg new body). This usually voids the logbook and requires a new one. As a new car how can it again be "grandfathered". Let's just allow with a penalty that discourages them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ Coupe Jason Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 steve, I think that is a great idea, only if!!! You approve each car with a fly wheel and they have to come to you and disclose that fact about there car if they do not then they will recieve a automatic DQ-ed! Also if they have a engine rebuild then they need to comply with the current rule which is Stock only flywheel! The only people that can have one is a person with a Current SCCA or POC log book, but there min wieght is 2675 no matter what, unless they have a confired NASA log book in which the weight is 2600 But I think you are on the right track cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeanutinCA Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 The only people that can have one is a person with a Current SCCA or POC log book, but there min wieght is 2675 no matter what, unless they have a confired NASA log book in which the weight is 2600 What do you mean by that Jason? POC don't allow the lightened flywheel so there shouldn't be any? And, do you meen if they have a NASA log book and a lightened flywheel they can meet the 2600 min weight? P.Dilly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ Coupe Jason Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Really, I thought they did cause the cars here that also run the POC events have the flywheel swap. When then forget about what I said about POC so I guess we are nly talking about the SCCA boys and girls (Spec-944) then there wieght should be 2675, with a log book from that orgs governing body. But just so we are on the same page no current NASA 944-spec cars with the Flywheel mod should be allowed to Race 944-spec! It has never been allowed and they never followed the rules so we should not conform to them, its called 944-Cup, go at it and spend to your heart desire! Let them grid with us and race with us but they do not score with us, unless they have a log book that certifies that there car is legal for that org (poc or spec944/SCCA) and also conforms to our rules (IE 2600 or 2675) But hell 75lbs my car is 2680 with me in it, so what really is 75lbs we are assuming that thier car is at 2600, so 75lbs might mean nothing to them anyways, so this is all for nothing, or we could buy the 75lbs worth of wieght like 3 sets and check them out to them with the stuff to install before the qualifing and add 75 to current weight! so if they are 2650 and have a fly wheel then their cars needs to be 2725. That might something I can be ok with! Jason Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944-spec#09 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Jason The rule as I have proposed is that lightened flywheels will be allowed with a 75 lb weight penalty thus the car with driver must meet 2675 lb. It is not 75 lb added to their current weight. It will not matter what car or driver it is - if they have a lightened flywheel they get the penalty. If you feel there is a car which has one and has not declared it, you can protest and it will be checked. If your car is heavy that is your fault - take more weight out. If you feel you want to discuss this more give me a call. 602-908-9449 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ Coupe Jason Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 No steve I just need to eat out less and gut my doors - But I still dont think we should allow the flywheel period, unless we are trying to get people from other orgs but then that is differnt situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.