|
Author |
Message |
Director
Moderator
Joined: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 1634 Location: Isle of Palms, SC
|
Planning to drop the weight minimum for the Cup class 2.7L cars for 2010 down 50 lbs. This has been an evolving process to find a more competitive weight for the 2.7L that is more in line with the power to weight ratio of the 2.5L cars.
_________________Dave Derecola National Director 944 Cup cup944@aol.com
|
Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:26 pm |
|
|
Director
Moderator
Joined: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 1634 Location: Isle of Palms, SC
|
don't have a 2.7 either and I'm happy for Big Joe, Cris and others with a 2.7L. It will be interesting to see in 2010 if the 50 lb. reduction is enough or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Comat Steering Committee Member 2009 944 Cup National Champion
_________________Dave Derecola National Director 944 Cup cup944@aol.com
|
Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:27 pm |
|
|
GregF
Driver
Joined: Nov 21, 2009 Posts: 216 Location: Redmond, Wa.
|
I would be in favor of any rule that:
1. discourages the introduction of the difficult to find 2.7l 2. Keeps the 2.7l in the 89 MDY car that is harder to get down to weight.
Greg F
|
Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:13 pm |
|
|
Webmaster
Site Admin
Joined: Nov 01, 2009 Posts: 131 Location: Seattle, WA
|
GregF wrote: 1. discourages the introduction of the difficult to find 2.7l Not sure I understand the "introduction" part. The 2.7 has been part of the Series since the beginning. In 2005, the top 4 cars had one and the top car in 2006 has one as well. They fell out of favor due to people realizing the 2.5's speed out of the corners was preferable at most of the tracks we run. As long as they're equal in lap times, what's it really matter?
_________________ I am not Dave.
'08 spec.B | '85 944 | '08 848
Rockin' the Cup since '02 | 3rd, 6th, 4th, 5th, 3rd, 5th, 13th (PT), 18th (PT), 6th (Team D), 3rd (Team D)
|
Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:50 pm |
|
|
cris.brady
Rookie Driver
Joined: Nov 09, 2009 Posts: 84 Location: Landenberg, PA
|
Quote: 2. Keeps the 2.7l in the 89 MDY car that is harder to get down to weight. Greg, I'm interested in the above comment since I'm now in the process of getting rid of weight in my 89. And I'm finding it hard. Is there some sort of diff between the 89 and earlier model years? I thought a NA tub was a NA tub.
_________________- Cris #88 1989 944 NA Tales from the Dark Side of Racing
|
Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:31 am |
|
|
Big Joe
Rookie Driver
Joined: Nov 22, 2009 Posts: 95 Location: Washington Metro Area
|
cris.brady wrote: Quote: 2. Keeps the 2.7l in the 89 MDY car that is harder to get down to weight. Greg, I'm interested in the above comment since I'm now in the process of getting rid of weight in my 89. And I'm finding it hard. Is there some sort of diff between the 89 and earlier model years? I thought a NA tub was a NA tub. Chris, according to Pelican Parts specs on the 944, 1985.5 thru 1989 were the lightest chassis' @2635lbs. 1983 thru 1985 @2675lbs. With 2.7L stock at 2750lbs, and 2.7L prepared at 2900lbs, its not extremely difficult to get to 2750lbs. And I weigh a few more lbs than you buddy Big Joe
|
Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:04 pm |
|
|
cris.brady
Rookie Driver
Joined: Nov 09, 2009 Posts: 84 Location: Landenberg, PA
|
Joe, I know you weigh more than me, you're a good bit taller and probably sample too much of your own good cooking When I read Greg's post above, it seemed he suggested that the 89 model year was somewhat heavier than the other post 85.5 cars. So is your 2.7 car an 89? I pretty much consistently weight 2860-2870 lbs last year. So assuming my own weight stays the same, that's 110 lbs to come out. I'm having trouble seeing where thats coming from. My car had a fair amount of gutting already done. I pulled my blower unit and heater core, that's maybe 15 lbs. Went to lightweight mirrors, that another 5 lbs. other than going to fiberglass bumpers and a lexan hatch, I don't see much of anything else with big numbers.
_________________- Cris #88 1989 944 NA Tales from the Dark Side of Racing
|
Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:54 pm |
|
|
GregF
Driver
Joined: Nov 21, 2009 Posts: 216 Location: Redmond, Wa.
|
I am not sure where the incorrect weight data came from, as the 82-85.5 cars are at least 75lb lighter than the 85.5 and up cars. Most of the weight change is in the front half of the car, with revised frame rails, core support, inner fenders, etc. that Porsche changed to keep pace with forthcoming crash standards. I have weighed a lot of these cars and have never found a late model car that was lighter than my 83 that has power windows, full dash, et all.
My comment regarding the 2.7l has more to do with the Cup allowance to put the 2.7l in an earlier chassis and still claim ITS prep specs. In SCCA the 2.7 is only allowed in the 89 mDY chassis with a correspondingly higher weight. I believe it is better for the series to concentrate on the plentiful 2.5l, and not create a condition, (again) where the " have to have" engine is more expensive and hard to find. Greg F
|
Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:15 pm |
|
|
GregF
Driver
Joined: Nov 21, 2009 Posts: 216 Location: Redmond, Wa.
|
The messy part of weight reduction on an 89-91 chassis is that the body undercoating is nearly twice as thick in an effort to lower road noise. It is thicker starting in 85.5, but when you scrape it off of a later car it will make you think that they were trying to use it all up on every car! Greg F
|
Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:34 pm |
|
|
Director
Moderator
Joined: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 1634 Location: Isle of Palms, SC
|
GregF wrote: My comment regarding the 2.7l has more to do with the Cup allowance to put the 2.7l in an earlier chassis and still claim ITS prep specs. In SCCA the 2.7 is only allowed in the 89 mDY chassis with a correspondingly higher weight. I believe it is better for the series to concentrate on the plentiful 2.5l, and not create a condition, (again) where the " have to have" engine is more expensive and hard to find. Greg F Over the course of the history of the series we have adjusted weight and power to demonstrate that the 2.7 is not the "have to have" engine. The results show that.
_________________Dave Derecola National Director 944 Cup cup944@aol.com
|
Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:35 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
|