I agree that the old G class was dominated by 911s, but when they broke it up, they did follow the speed hierarchy--they put the 2.0-2.2 911S in H, and the 2.4 911S and 911E went to I class, so the "newer" 944 ended up in the "lower" class. What was ignored or neglected was that the F-class then and now still contains the weakest "normal" or T model early 911 variants, along with the strongest of the 356 models (the 4-cam). I am not convinced that these F cars are "overdogs" against the 944, even with the weight advantage, given the 944s balance and larger allowable tire size. I think the differences might be course and driver dependent, but that is an issue that could be debated. I set out 3 years ago to find out the answer with my FP project, but now here I am and times have changed. Ain't that just like life...a day late and a dollar short again...Jad wrote:... there was a reason the 911's and 944's were separated and I think the 911's should be in G and the 944's in F, but it was decided to make a new car/ old car split instead of basing it on speed for that class break.
At the time the G-class split occurred, I argued that the 944 should be taken down to a new D class rather than putting the 911s in G up to H and I class (where they became instant underdogs), but no one listened to me. I'm not sure that F and G classes should be swapped any more. I do know that with the growth and development of the 944 Spec classes, when a GS car is developed, it tends to go the Spec route rather than following the G progression, which has made GP and FI classes pretty much "ghosts" of their former selves these days.
BTW, didn't you take advantage of the II. F. provision at Pahrump this year? I know you didn't just "find" 37 seconds between May and October.
TT