As one of the newest guys (and probably the broke-est)I don't think a $90-140 short shifter is out of line with the spirit of the class. We have $500+ sway bars to choose from and $2K+ suspension packages. while these cost may be cheaper than other series it is by no means chump change.
a short shifter is a performance enhancer but so is the suspension/brakes/other mods we do to make the car drive/perform better. I think its a cheap way to decrease the chances of a money-shift which seems to be pretty common with these cars. And a money shift is a quick way to take somebody out for the season.

While I agree it is not alot of money it is rules creep. It is a performance gain so all will feel they need it.
Money shifts are caused by driver error not car error. I have raced these cars since 2007. And have always used the worn out stock shifter with no mods until this season. Never had a money shift in all those years. Won lots of races and set track records. Never had a tranmission failure of any kind.
Speeding up the shifting will likely caise damage to syncros. They will only shift so fast.
Maybe slow down your shifting and focus on driving cleaner. That is the biggest performance gain any car can get.

cbuzzetti wrote:


That's good advice and thank you. I think we should all focus on shifting smoother and cleaner. I agree with you that a money shift is driver error but some of it is also shifter design error. A tighter shifter means that amateur drivers have to be less like the stig to keep their cars on track. I consider myself a fairly decent driver but even as recently as August, I had a shift that nearly cost me my engine and the race, which I was leading at the time.

I also agree that allowing the short shifter would be rules creep but it needs to be said that any change is going to be rules creep and we should only allow those changes that benefit the longevity of the series.

With that being said, this rule would definitely benefit the longevity of the series with little impact in the way of performance advantage.

You've admitted that the part is cheap and several here have shown ways to have the same effect on the linkage with little to no expense.

It would benefit the series by helping those less experienced and prudent drivers, keep it between the gates so to speak. The penalty for exuberance in these cars is very likely an engine rebuild, which is not good for the longevity of the series. Many a driver has succumbed to the red mist and it shouldn't cost them an engine in most cases.

You said that it's a performance gain so racers will feel they need it. I think that's great because the more racers put these shifters on their cars, the less cars will be out for rebuilds and the more cars we will have consistently on track. Overall I think this lowers the cost of racing these cars.

Addressing your concern about the syncros, I agree that these transmissions would suffer from F1 speed shifts and likely wouldn't hold up to that abuse, but that's not what we're talking about here. The reality is that the shifters on these cars are so sloppy, as you've admitted, that fixing the design and putting a shorter throw on the shifter will only result in what most cars see as a normal throw.

I've got an extremely short shifter on my RX-7 and it's the best thing I've done for that car, it's been installed for 7 years and I haven't destroyed a syncro yet. It gives such a connected feel to the car and I wish we could feel that way in a 944. Unfortunately, we can't because even with a short shifter, that only gets us back to what a regular shifter on any other car would feel like.

I think I've made my case the best I can at this point so I will back off and let the rest of the racers voice their opinions.

Obviously, my vote is for a short shifter and I will go so far as to say that we should allow the pivot arm and the use of the top slot on Kyle's short shifter. I think our cars would benefit from a shorter throw in both directions and it will help keep more cars on track.

Man, if the mutli time national and western champion, not to mention gts and regional champ, says there's not a problem then there probably isn't. I think his vote should override everyone else.

I thought I had shifter problems and rebuilt the lever and changed the rear mechanism and still had to drop out of the 2014 nationals. Turns out it was the slave cylinder and the clutch wouldn't disengage fully sometimes. I drove one of the qualifying races without using the pedal and even with the 30 year old shift linkage and tranny I was able to find a gear and even finished pretty well. For the next event I pulled the slave and hose from my parts car that was frayed and cracked and it did just fine, the cost was zero.

Seriously I think we should not have a rules proposal period every year. It leads to some sort of new rule that might not be needed. I propose a rules committee be set up and they decide if something is needed and then get the input from us and decide from there. I also think a former or current champ should sit on this committee.

BTW, I AM for the 3 peice crossmember. It's not a performance advantage, can be done at home or bought, and would help with working under the motor.

Jason Stanley is one of the fastest 944 drivers in the south east and he seems to think that we need the quick shifter so by your logic we should pass the quick shifter rule? I think it should pass or not based on what the majority of the racers want.

rd7839 wrote:



If that's your stance then it doesn't lend much room for an open discussion on the topic. While I respect the opinion of those that have more experience than I do, I do not believe any 1 person should have that much sway over the whole group. His opinion should be heavily weighted but shouldn't be the final word.