Lexan Rear Hatch Rule Change

[no. 16 944]

This madness must stop. I have discussed the ability to use a Lexan rear hatch at length with Eric from a safety standpoint and a quick and easy means for getting weight out of a car. My understanding is that the reason lexan hatches are not allowed is primarily because of the perceived cost. Having tried everything else to get weight out of an 89 chassis, which still weighs 2800lbs with me (200lbs) in it, I can say that the cost of the lexan hatch is a fraction of the cost of the alternative weight reduction options.

 

I had a lexan windshield installed and removed the stock dash. This saved me 25lbs and cost $1500. In contrast, the lexan rear hatch cost me $450 and would save about 35lbs over the rear hatch. I bought the Lexan hatch from Apex Performance ($375). The rest of the was in tools for removing the glass, clamps, and adhesive for installing the hatch. My understanding is that you can now by a finished hatch for about the same price and save yourself the trouble of doing the installation. Since I still need to get weight out of this car, I ask that the rules be changed to allow a lexan rear hatch.

 

I believe that this accomplishes two things. It will provide an easy and much more cost effective way of removing weight from the car and provide a safety benefit by getting rid of the glass rear hatch. A tangential benefit may be that it encourages guys running in GTS1 to switch over because it is one less thing that they undo to the car to get it ready for spec.

[944-Spec#94]

My personal feeling...

I don't want to spend $450 to lower my CG due to the effect of 35lbs way up high. (I already ballast my 84 chassis)

 

With winshield the goal was not weight savings, but a cost improvement due to the fact cracked windshileds occur. So this can be an option to reduce the overall cost of operation. The impact on weight is an unfortunate side benefit that was consiidered acceptable given the potential cost benefits. I chose to run glass however.

 

Rear hatch glass can last the lifetime of the car and never wears. Other than being heavy it works perfectly. The only advantage of lexan rear hatch is the weight savings which translates into a lower center of gravity.

 

As rules coordinator....

I have no issue including this idea as propoal for 2012 rules changes. These start getting put together in October after Nationals and after driver feedback get finalized in December for January publishing. Any number of changes can be proposed and given sufficent justification and feedback may be incorprated.

[cbuzz]

How many have an 89 chassis?

 

Cant see the reason to make a rule for one or two people.

 

You chose the wrong chassis, sorry. A little homework would have prevented this problem.

 

The percieved advantage will force alot of drivers to make the upgrade at a cost of $400 each. That money is much better spent on a good valve job and shaving the head. Or a set of new Bilstein shocks.

 

In a semi democratic society it is best to do what is right for the masses not individuals.

 

Oh yeah I forgot to say "NO NEW RULES"

 

Now stepping off of soap box and turning it into a racecar.

[JerryW]

I'm balasting the car with a glass hatch. Another vote for NO NEW RULES and COSTS

[JerryW]

Shannon - what region do you run with ? I'm sure that your local guys can look over your car and see if there is something more that accounts for this extra weight.

 

We may seem a bit harsh on our desire to NOT change major things or incur unneeded costs, but it is what differentiates the class from many other "Spec" classes. (And the Lexan discussion comes up so often !)

 

Unfortunately you apparently have one of the heavier chassis models in the series, but that shouldn't be a reason to put the burden on the others in the class.

[no. 16 944]

Jerry,

 

Thanks for the perspective. I talked about this topic at length with Eric over winter before I decided to move over to this class, and knew that any rule change would be an uphill battle. After spending a lot more money to get less than 35lbs out of the car, I just think that all of the talk about no rules and no added costs doesn't make sense in this particular case. So I thought I'd throw out there and see what people think.

 

I am in Great Lakes. We have 4 cars in our region. We need to grow just to get some real contingencies.

[JerryW]

You just need one more for the main contingencies !

 

Are you planning to go to Nationals ? There will be many there that can go over your car and see if there is something you/we overlooked. I understand the frustration - but one of our faster guys here on NorCal is running a late model car still with the full interior and A/C and still manages to get on the podium, so its not ALL about the weight. (It might actually be an 89 - I forget)

 

Maybe if you post pictures we could also see if we see anything.

[Sterling Doc]

Shannon -

 

Let me take a good look at your car at Mid-Ohio next weekend. We'll find some cheap weight reduction for you. You can also take a good look at my car, which is a late chassis car (though early offset) that comes in at 2,300 lbs dry. With a rachet, angle grinder, and a little aluminum, we can drop more than 40lbs right at the track, and I can give some pointers as to where to find some more. Don't spend any more money on it, yet! As a doc, maybe I can make a few recommendations to lose a little weight yourself ?

 

I can bring some aluminum sheets along - are you going to be there Friday?

 

Don't forget you can run these cars very low on fuel as well - they have very efficient tanks, and don't starve, even with only a few gallons left in them.

 

You'll be eligible for some contingencies next weekend, and for the rest of the season, for sure. We have 10 cars confirmed for Mid-O so far. Unfortunately, a few MW guys got caught out by the event filling up, but still a good turnout, and maybe the waiting list will open up, and add a few more?

[944-Spec#94]

Don't forget you can run these cars very low on fuel as well - they have very efficient tanks, and don't starve, even with only a few gallons left in them.

 

Yes, Unlike some cars the 944 can run right down to the last drop. Years ago I ran an enduro miscalculated fuel a little bit. I ran the car right down to empty and my warnings were that the car studdered for 2 laps (1.5 mile laps) in turns before it stopped all together.

 

So I ran the tank down to zero fuel and it ran flawless until that last 3 miles. Point is I never go starvation in turns until I was just plain out of gas. So if you toss in 5 gallons on a 100% empty tank you can make a 30-40 minute race no issues. No need to run an extra fuel ever.

[JerryW]

So I ran the tank down to zero fuel and it ran flawless until that last 3 miles. Point is I never go starvation in turns until I was just plain out of gas. So if you toss in 5 gallons on a 100% empty tank you can make a 30-40 minute race no issues. No need to run an extra fuel ever.

 

Actually I use the fuel as an extra ballast if needed. Easier and more granular than lead weights ! Just have to deal with the weight bias change from burning the fuel - but that happens anyway.

[944-Spec#94]

Actually I use the fuel as an extra ballast if needed. Easier and more granular than lead weights ! Just have to deal with the weight bias change from burning the fuel - but that happens anyway.

 

I perfer weights as ballast as compared to fuel. Getting the fuel level spot on perfect it not always easy and I really don't want finish a racing hoping a calculated the fuel right to make weight.

 

I perfer have my car at 2600 (plus a little margin for scale error) with zero fuel on board. This way even if I run out of gas I can make weight. Plus for my car it tends to shift torward understeer with more fuel weight. However weight in the allowed balast location (which is where I also mount my cool suit cooler as well) tends to have no impact on handling balance.

[JerryW]

I perfer weights as ballast as compared to fuel. Getting the fuel level spot on perfect it not always easy and I really don't want finish a racing hoping a calculated the fuel right to make weight.

 

I perfer have my car at 2600 (plus a little margin for scale error) with zero fuel on board. This way even if I run out of gas I can make weight. Plus for my car it tends to shift torward understeer with more fuel weight. However weight in the allowed balast location (which is where I also mount my cool suit cooler as well) tends to have no impact on handling balance.

 

Totally agree - and once I get scales at home I'll probably go that way. but at the meantime I work to be at 2610 with my planned low fuel load to allow for variations in track scale setup.

 

Just wanted to make sure folks thought about the ability IF found light on a particular weekend they had a quick and easy option. I make a point of weighing on the track scales EVERY weekend BEFORE Qualifying.

[cbuzz]

I have added fuel to my car to fix an oversteer problem at Cal Speedway. The track was loose on exits and this worked perfectly. I won the race and set fastest lap.

 

The weight of the car is not near as critical as driving it well. The less mistakes you make the lower your overall elapsed time of the race. The person with the lower overall time is the winner.

 

The single biggest improvement you can make to your car is to be a better driver. There is no substitute for practice days and seat time.

 

All the fast guys know this and that is why they offer instruction to any who want it.

 

Is weight important? yes but not as much as you may think. i always tried to give myself a 25 lb cushion. 1% on the scales is 26 lbs. That is a pretty slim margin.

[JerryW]

Thanks Charlie - some interesting numbers there

[Sterling Doc]

There is a good older thread on the Spec forums about the impact of weight (and other variables) on the performance of a 944 Spec car, here:http://www.944spec.org/944SPEC/forum/general/8361-what-makes-a-spec-car-faster-and-slower?limit=6&start=18

 

A 180lb passenger cost me .4 seconds at Putnam Park.

[cbuzz]

Yes but you can go 1.5 seconds faster by not making any mistakes.

 

If you have ever used data aquistion you will know what I am talking about.

 

First there is fastest rolling lap. This looks at all the data and tells you what your fastest lap was from a predetermined starting point chosen by the computer. Say like T3 to T3. This is usually 1/2 to 3/4 of a second faster than your fastest lap of that session using the trigger point for your DA system (like the start finish line).

 

Then there is theoretical best. This looks at all your data from a session and links together your best corners and straights to give you this theoretical best lap time. Now this time is not really possible on most tracks but it is usually 2-3 seconds fatser than any lap you ran that session.

 

The driver is truly the weakest link of a half decent racecar.

[Big Dog]

As Jerry mentioned in trying to be at 2610 to allow for variances in track scales, I have seen more than 10 pounds of variance to what I was expecting. I always try to get to the track scales prior to the quali session on Saturday to make sure I am OK. Recently, at Buttonwillow I was more than 25 pounds light after Saturday qualifying. The good news was that many others had the same issue and we were all given our times but told to meet the minimum for the race regardless of the accuracy of the track scales. We all caught a break from officials that understood the problem.

 

The closer you want to be to minimum, the more you need to get to the track scale prior to that first quali session.

 

Big Dog

[944-Spec#94]

Yes but you can go 1.5 seconds faster by not making any mistakes.

 

Beyond even that runing 1-2 fast laps is nice, but rather pointless. In a race you want to run the MOST laps the highest total pace. There are guys that can run 1-2 laps right up with fastests or at track record pace, but cannot sustain that over the length of a race. As a result they drop back.

 

For a long time when I had my open diff I could run fast laps close to the class leaders, but could not sustain them. I really had to be perfect each lap to control the car at that pace. Often I would make small errors and slowly a time gap would develop. Once I added my LSD unit I did not see much if any lap time improvement, but my consistancy improved because I was not forced to drive on the edge quite as much. So now I could hang on the leaders the entire race distance instead of just for 2-3 laps.

 

Point is getting the car to work just right is tough. As racer you need learn out right speed, consistancy, need to be able tune the chassis, and understand race craft enough to hold a position or make pass. It is alot work.

[944-Spec#94]

The closer you want to be to minimum, the more you need to get to the track scale prior to that first quali session.

 

Correct and the scales at the track are offical. Not the ones at home or at your shop. Even if the scales are wrong if you come up light you could be DQ'ed. Most of the time the tech guys realize that if bunch of cars come up light there could be an issue, but don't count on it. If you know you run less than 20llbs over minimum then you need to spend time checking the scales. It is your responsibility as the driver to make sure your car meets the minimum weight as measured on the scales at the track. In my experience 20lbs is not a winning or losing margin on weight, but often can take the worry out of rolling on the scales post race. You can get a DQ for being 5lbs under weight even we when all agree the those 5lbs did not made the difference the win.

[Al F.]

Leaning back to the original topic and admitting not knowing enough about the differences in the years...it appears that getting the car down to minimum is not impossible for the 89 chassis nor does it require big money or an 85lb driver, rather time in the garage. Is that fair? What other 89s are out there and what have they gotten down to?

 

I know mine is far from being optimized weight wise and it is still well under minimum unless I ballast up. I weigh 230, I have a passenger seat, and a cool suit setup too!

[Big Dog]

Are 88 and 89's the same? If so, getting my 88 down to weight took some time but not money.

 

Big Dog

[944-Spec#94]

Are 88 and 89's the same? If so, getting my 88 down to weight took some time but not money.

 

Big Dog

 

That is the expectation given they way we wrote the rules to allow an 89 chassis with a 2.5L motor.

 

 

The rules in general are intended to allow any car to make 2600lbs with driver with the only expense as time. Time to remove stuff that you don't need rather money to replace with lighter parts. We expect that in this class that the do it yourself factor is quite high and try keep mods to a level that supports the at home builder.

 

While it does not take alot of skill, it does take time to remove undercoatings, glus and pare down the body electircal harness to the minimum. If someone does not have the time they may be forced to pay someone to do that work, but like anything we cannot control that. While a lighter hatch may save 35lbs it also forces everyone to spend real money to prep their car. 8 hours of stripping undercoating can save 35lbs too and might cost $450 as well, but the at home guys can choose to pay someone for $450 or do it themselves for $0 spent. You are just not going to do that with the hatch.

[Tim Comeau]

I know of no difference in the 1989 chassis from the other 944's. It's the bolt on stuff that makes it heavier. The more experienced guys around you will look at your car and show you where the weight is.

I weigh about 170 with gear and with:

1 ballast lead ~60 lbs

2 Cool suit system ~ 15-20 lbs

3 Onboard fire system ~ 17 lbs

4 and the hardware to nail it all down, it equals about 107 lbs of "ballast."

 

Bottom line here is that, like the other guys said, there's more weight that can be removed from the chassis. You'll be fine. Sell off the lexan hatch.