Jerry, as we talked about this on the phone, I like that idea as well. It is specific, workable, and doesn't affect enforcement. Is everyone OK with their numbers out there?

Logistically, we'd have to work out a few details, but I think it's doable.
We had 12 cars pulled for compliance runs at Nationals. That's 36 dyno graphs to post! If average numbers would be enough, that would be easy. Moving forward, I'll do whatever the collective minds here would like on this.

I can talk in general terms about what we saw at Nationals this year. We saw the highest numbers when the cars were hot, and we saw many cars not reach their potential when cold. We did not see cars randomly dyno'ing over the 140 hard cap. In fact, there was only one that went over, and that one did on several pulls through the week (though clearly not all of them). Of the lead pack of 4 cars, those cars dyno'd between 134 and 141 HP average. The car that was in the lead for much of Nationals consistently had the least power -between 134 and 136.

My take away is this. It is still hard to reach a 140 HP average on a Dynojet with a 944 Spec car. It is also not necessary to push the limit to be competitive.

When testing your car - do enough runs in to get everything hot and find it's potential. Then give yourself a little breathing room if needed. It's not hard to take a away a few HP. Why stress over a few HP?

12A/B No there does not seem to be a problem to begin with. People race 924S because they prefer it over the 944 so this is one of the minor differences. I have not heard anyone prove that ram air helps performance and with a cap on horsepower why would it make any difference if it did offer better horsepower.

13 Yes if someone wants to use them and save a little weight fine they still have to get to 2600 pound minimum. I know that this allows someone to move weight around to optimize the cars handling but so be it. As a side note the Lexan has static electricity so it attracts dirt plus scratches easier.
14 No we are trying to control the costs of car prep so why allow the removal of the spare tire well. We should always attempt to minimize changes to the body of the car.

Big Dog appreciate the post it brings so detail to the dyno issue. These rules need to be transparent, simple and consistently applied. Each region needs to apply them in the same manner and at the same time and hopefully on the same equipment.

I am working my way through talking with interested parties on the phone about the dyno process - it's been very constructive so far.

Charlie & Jim - I have emails coming to you guys to find a time to talk as well.

rd7839 wrote:



No - I'd rather stay close to factory, but I disagree with some years of 944 being allowed to remove it and others not. Rules should apply across all eligible models of the same type.

I appreciate all the input here. It is nice to see so many care about the class and put the time in to make their thoughts known.

A couple of minor points of clarification:

1. The allowance to remove the rear tire well for late cars happened many years ago. There was no proposal made to take that away this year. What is on the table is whether this should continue to be limited to late cars only.

This is a good example of how rules creep happens though - one thing is allowed, and more implications and rules changes follow. Reversing these things later is tough - i.e. putting a spare tire well back in.

So, here we are - do we extend this allowance all cars, or stop the rules creep now by leaving the early cars out? No easy answer, but we have to decide.

2. There is some data to suggest that ram air makes a difference at speeds starting at 80 MPH. and increasing from there. As fast tracks, like Road America, and Cal Speedway, it is significant. If you want to go over the original data (and ram air debate with it), the thread is here: www.944spec.org/944SPEC/forum/general/11...we-learned-this-year We don't know if routing from the turn signal area makes a difference vs. the foglight.