944 S2 coilovers

[robwright]

Agree with the sentiments about too much lowering and not just for the geometry sake. By adjusting the trailing arm I got about 1/2-3/4 inch of lowering and to be fair it is just enough to give the car a much better look without compromising the geometry. Any more I think just looks wrong and actually is wrong.

 

[Cater_Racer]

So wherever they sit their spring rates and it's resistance will always act and be additional should you also be using Coil springs wrapped around the damper (So Gerry your rear spring rate will be your S2 T-Bars + the Coils , from the get go... there's no way of delaying them to come in as they are a permanently fixed spring.


R

Yeah Roger you're right in principle, however the T-bars are progressive, so if you select the ride height you're after using the spring platforms then pop the T-Bars back in you effectively have the coil-over rate for the first bit of travel and the T-Bar progressively aiding as the spring compresses. However ours is purely a race car so we've set it up stiff as board anyway. Obviously having been racing Caterhams for 20+ years we are used to there being next to no suspension movement. It's not a case of right way/wrong way it's just how does it suit you.

Obviously not suitable for road use.

Gerry

 

[924Srr27l]

So wherever they sit their spring rates and it's resistance will always act and be additional should you also be using Coil springs wrapped around the damper (So Gerry your rear spring rate will be your S2 T-Bars + the Coils , from the get go... there's no way of delaying them to come in as they are a permanently fixed spring.
R

Yeah Roger you're right in principle, however the T-bars are progressive, so if you select the ride height you're after using the spring platforms then pop the T-Bars back in you effectively have the coil-over rate for the first bit of travel and the T-Bar progressively aiding as the spring compresses. However ours is purely a race car so we've set it up stiff as board anyway. Obviously having been racing Caterhams for 20+ years we are used to there being next to no suspension movement. It's not a case of right way/wrong way it's just how does it suit you.
Obviously not suitable for road use.
Gerry

A Solid or Hollow Equal thickness Spring can't be progressive Gerry! Some Coil Springs are wound with tighter bound coils which means these will quash before the coils that have a bigger distance between them making it progressively would. The other method is to use a Tappered Wire for a Coil Spring (like a Snooker Cue) this will give a set rate for the initial weight and then a higher rate after. The length of this and the timing can all be worked out by Faulkner Springs who can make bespoke Tapered Coil springs.

Going back to the Torsion (Bar) Spring this is a straight bar that twists so it's a linear rate of resistance which as you know
is fixed on either end (by Splines) so whenever you twist the bar at all even from. 5mm it will have resistance and a spring rate.

There's no way of not allowing the Torsion bar to NOT add any resistance, and only have the Coils acting for the first bit of travel The moment the trailing arm moves so does the torsion bar ! as it's fixed firmly to the Trailing arm and on the other side inside the Torsion tube.

So there is no progression of the Tbars and not the Coils, but a Standard S2 Torsion bar has a spring rate approx 137Lbs and you've probably got Coil springs in the 300Lbs + region so 430lbs total but the Coils have the most resistance by 2.2 times.

It's easier for Racing to take off the Tbars and just use Coil Springs.

I've driven on the road with 500lbs Front and 800Lbs Rear Coils (+ 20mm ARB) and with the Intrax would down to number 6 from 40F & 50R clicks it was a very acceptable ride & drive on 16" Wheels and 50 series tyre profiles.

R

 

[Cater_Racer]

Torsion bars are non-progressive only in an ideal world.....
Any play in in the mechanism will provide a movement without seroius resistance.

Mine are 30 years old with 178,000 miles .... there's play, believe me.

G

 

[Indi9xx]

Ive fitted a lot of coil-overs over the years.

Removing the torsion bars and just using the coil-overs on the rear on the aluminium arms is something I have seen cause the rear arm to fail where it attaches to, iv'e only seen it happen once, but that was enough for me to decide it is a risk not worth taking.

With GAZ and KW, I nearly always recommend throwing the springs that come in the kit away, and calculate something sensible based partly on experience for rate (and what the customer wants to use the car for) and based on calculations for spring length based on the desired ride height and the spring rate to be used. On some setup's I often work on this with the customer first, before ordering the kits and get them re-valved with the spring rate in mind, so there is plenty of adjustment soft and hard tailored to the spring rate, or in the case of some kit manufacturers, send them off to my shock guy to have him re-valve them.

Get the spring rates right, for what you want to use it with, with the standard torsion bars, or even downgrading or upgrading them depending on the use, combined with some decent anti roll bars can make a 944 handle like it is on rails (when right, even standard is not at all bad), experience little body roll, still allow some weight transfer to help traction and grip, along with keeping all four wheels on the ground and yet being comfortable on UK roads and tracks, which are not exactly smooth NASCAR ovals.

Before switching to coil-overs, I usually recommend people go for the 968 Clubsport M030 anti roll bars, the same souced front wishbone caster mounts, as well as some good standard shocks (or a ride in a car with some fresh units or Koni's), as most people when they think they want to increase spring rate or lower the car, what they really want is less body roll, and then go from there.

I have even seen a car setup (allegedly) by a place that is well known in the Porsche world for setting up geometry, where the torsion bars were left in, but the spring plates has the adjusters removed so it was pivoting on the pivot bolts that were also acting as a bearing with washers and a split pin to keep it from undoing... I say allegedly as I really can't think that anyone that knows anything about how the rear spring plates work, would do something so daft, but when asked the customer insisted this place had fitted the KW kit and set it up literally the week before.

As I say, that is allegedly, there is a strong possibility that it was really done by "a mate" or a loony garage, sometimes customers seem to think telling fibs about how a car ended up in a certain condition will somehow make it cheaper to put right!

 

[924Srr27l]

Torsion bars are non-progressive only in an ideal world.....
Any play in in the mechanism will provide a movement without seroius resistance.
Mine are 30 years old with 178,000 miles .... there's play, believe me.
G

Blimey Gerry, your saying the splines are so badly worn (Play) the trailing arms can be pushed up or pulled down and the torsion bars's are taking up the slack from excessive wear ??

Surely this can't be a performance advantage but a deficit?

R

 

[924Srr27l]

Ive fitted a lot of coil-overs over the years.

Removing the torsion bars and just using the coil-overs on the rear on the aluminium arms is something I have seen cause the rear arm to fail where it attaches to, iv'e only seen it happen once, but that was enough for me to decide it is a risk not worth taking.

Get the spring rates right, for what you want to use it with, with the standard torsion bars, or even downgrading or upgrading them depending on the use, combined with some decent anti roll bars can make a 944 handle like it is on rails

Yes Jon i've seen one example on a Yankie side where the trailing arm broke, but it was a car running slicks and very high spring rates etc...

There's thousands of 24 / 44/ 68's all out there (worldwide) being raced with the Torsion springs removed and coils fitted instead that all survive lots of abuse, so I think if this was a serious problem it would be a far more common issue that occurs a lot and subsequently it would be very well known that this potential weak spot needs urgent attention.

It's the bottom Ball joint which is far more commonly known to not be up to much abuse on the road not to mention for racing, and especially when car's have been lowered and the ball angle is compromised as is the Roll centre geometry etc..

Handling on Rails is something I'm still looking to achieve on my 924S 2.7 race car, which it has improved vastly so far but it's not there yet....

R

 

[CarreraRSR]

My two penneth too.......

EMC initially set up my car with more track focus, as initially discussed with myself. Spec'd some Gaz Golds to their input and installed them so the rears rested on the torsion bars and used the Gaz spring as a helper. It was low and hard. Perfect for billiard smooth race tracks. Not so perfect UK roads and bumpy tracks

A few years later and after a lot of other work done on the car I needed another chassis/corner weight set up done. Gravity Centre set it up for more fast road/occasional track + sprint + hillclimbs in mind. They lifted the ride height front and rear. The rear coilover spring was amended so it carried the weight of the car and utilising the torsion bar as a helper. Car was markedly improved for road use. But I am sure would be slower if driven 10/tenths on a track. Its not a balls out race car.

Both suggested in various discussions not to remove the torsion bars (i've got steel v ally trailing arms anyhow) ..... many opinions for and against on t'interweb. I paid for fact/result based opinion when it comes to a respected specialist setting up my car for my intended use. So this isn't meant to be rubbing anyone up. Go to someone with expertise for your expectation and end use. One spec does not fit all........

 

[924Srr27l]

My two penneth too.......

EMC initially set up my car with more track focus, as initially discussed with myself. Spec'd some Gaz Golds to their input and installed them so the rears rested on the torsion bars and used the Gaz spring as a helper. It was low and hard. Perfect for billiard smooth race tracks. Not so perfect UK roads and bumpy tracks

A few years later and after a lot of other work done on the car I needed another chassis/corner weight set up done. Gravity Centre set it up for more fast road/occasional track + sprint + hillclimbs in mind. They lifted the ride height front and rear. The rear coilover spring was amended so it carried the weight of the car and utilising the torsion bar as a helper. Car was markedly improved for road use. But I am sure would be slower if driven 10/tenths on a track. Its not a balls out race car.

Both suggested in various discussions not to remove the torsion bars (i've got steel v ally anyhow) ..... many opinions for and against on t'interweb. I paid for fact/result based opinion when it comes to a respected specialist setting up my car for my intended use. So this isn't meant to be rubbing anyone up. Go to someone with expertise for your expectation and end use. One spec does not fit all........

Ahh... Thanks Steve

Gaz Golds for road use will be (as you found out) way too HARD, I spoke to them with the initial project 924 lightweight (250kg reduction) and they advised me their valving and recommended springs would be way too hard for road use.

Even Bilstein, Spax and KW were all too hard also because they are for car's with 1.5 ton weights not 500kg lighter.
Hence I paid strong money (5K) and have dampers and Springs specially specced for the car and it's use by INTRAX from Holland. They gave me 170lb front springs, which compared to GAZ and K/W which would of been near 300+ !

You had no movement at all for british roads, and your front wishbones were at an acute angle hence you'd of had more roll than stock, Raising the ride height from the "slammed all show and no go" look will always as you found out make it much better for road use and it would of also been better on track as the correct geo will always outweight the lower centre of gravity benefit.

I seem to remember you'a also fitted incorrect offset wheels to jack them out ET23? This will play havoc with the bumpsteer and change the scrub radius making it a pig to drive as the steering wheel would be jumpy in your hands and the car would follow dips in the road and turn left or right on it's own (Bumpsteer) Again raising the car as you did would of made all these issues much less.

"The rear coilover spring was amended so it carried the weight of the car and utilising the torsion bar as a helper."

If you still had the Gaz coil spring? and the OE Torsion bar none of them are a "Helper" as they are both too strong rates.
A helper spring is used mostly to allow main springs to be fitted to dampers without having to compress them, they can also be used to seperate the main spring from being used for a certain amount of travel when used with Torsion bars. Helpers are usually all less than 10lbs rate in resistance and are designed to fully quash when loaded statically or as above with the first small amount of travel .

The other type of spring is a Tender, which is a much higher rate than a Helper, EG Main spring 500lbs, Tender 300lbs
Total Spring rate 400lbs, until one of the coils goes coilbound which is dependant of the free open lengths..

"Both suggested in various discussions not to remove the torsion bars (i've got steel v ally anyhow)"

What's Steel or Aluminium ?

R

 

[Indi9xx]

Yes Jon i've seen one example on a Yankie side where the trailing arm broke, but it was a car running slicks and very high spring rates etc...

There's thousands of 24 / 44/ 68's all out there (worldwide) being raced with the Torsion springs removed and coils fitted instead that all survive lots of abuse, so I think if this was a serious problem it would be a far more common issue that occurs a lot and subsequently it would be very well known that this potential weak spot needs urgent attention.

It's the bottom Ball joint which is far more commonly known to not be up to much abuse on the road not to mention for racing, and especially when car's have been lowered and the ball angle is compromised as is the Roll centre geometry etc..

Handling on Rails is something I'm still looking to achieve on my 924S 2.7 race car, which it has improved vastly so far but it's not there yet....

After seeing one let go at a trackday in the UK, I was thankful he was not my customer and decided that for road use I would not do it, just on race cars where everyone involved knows the score.

Lowering the car bellow the original Porsche manual updates prompted some bad things happening in racing in the 80's, is something I also stick to, although there are many out there that do not and go lower.

With the 924S race car, that is something close to my heart, without a rulebook there are some things which can be done to really improve the cars, such as fitting 86-944 front wishbones, which then unlock being able to use the 968 M030 Caster mounts, 944/968 anti roll bar drop links and 944/968 anti roll bars without their geometry binding up. But the biggest challenge is often getting enough wheel on these, which can be improved by mixing offsets different rear wheel studs and ditching the spacer, but there are so many combinations to use and get results, you have probably been through the mill of trying lots of options for suspension, wheels along with all the side effects and trade offs.

I do like the 924S models though as a car to modify, light weight, many engine options, many brake and hub options while even retaining the speedo, I keep promising myself a 924S fast road car as a project, as the ones we do for customers are so much fun.

 

[924Srr27l]

After seeing one let go at a trackday in the UK, I was thankful he was not my customer and decided that for road use I would not do it, just on race cars where everyone involved knows the score.

Lowering the car bellow the original Porsche manual updates prompted some bad things happening in racing in the 80's, is something I also stick to, although there are many out there that do not and go lower.

With the 924S race car, that is something close to my heart, without a rulebook there are some things which can be done to really improve the cars, such as fitting 86-944 front wishbones, which then unlock being able to use the 968 M030 Caster mounts, 944/968 anti roll bar drop links and 944/968 anti roll bars without their geometry binding up. But the biggest challenge is often getting enough wheel on these, which can be improved by mixing offsets different rear wheel studs and ditching the spacer, but there are so many combinations to use and get results, you have probably been through the mill of trying lots of options for suspension, wheels along with all the side effects and trade offs.

I do like the 924S models though as a car to modify, light weight, many engine options, many brake and hub options while even retaining the speedo, I keep promising myself a 924S fast road car as a project, as the ones we do for customers are so much fun.

Yes I've done all your thoughts and suggestions and more due to the Race regulations being very open !
2 hour Endurance races with the 750MC "Club Enduro" Fields of 50 and 3 classes based on power to weight etc..

It has 944 late aluminium wishbones (With Spherical bearing Caster Blocks) modified to accept an M18 Rod end, as are the stub axles modified to rid the bumpsteer and correct the roll centre from the lower ride height.

- Brakes 20 piston system (6 pot front 4 pot rear)

- front ARB is 944 S2/ Turbo 26.8mm and the rear a rare 20mm version

All 4Wheels 8Jx16 and 215/50/16

Weight 1020kg

A 2.7 8v Lindsey Racing Engine, lightweight crank, flywheel and pistons etc.....

Plus added downforce! Front Splitter and rear Carbon wing which produces 80kg @ 100mph
To my knowledge it's the fastest lapping 924 racing in the Uk at the moment

R

 

[CarreraRSR]

My two penneth too.......

EMC initially set up my car with more track focus, as initially discussed with myself. Spec'd some Gaz Golds to their input and installed them so the rears rested on the torsion bars and used the Gaz spring as a helper. It was low and hard. Perfect for billiard smooth race tracks. Not so perfect UK roads and bumpy tracks

A few years later and after a lot of other work done on the car I needed another chassis/corner weight set up done. Gravity Centre set it up for more fast road/occasional track + sprint + hillclimbs in mind. They lifted the ride height front and rear. The rear coilover spring was amended so it carried the weight of the car and utilising the torsion bar as a helper. Car was markedly improved for road use. But I am sure would be slower if driven 10/tenths on a track. Its not a balls out race car.

Both suggested in various discussions not to remove the torsion bars (i've got steel v ally anyhow) ..... many opinions for and against on t'interweb. I paid for fact/result based opinion when it comes to a respected specialist setting up my car for my intended use. So this isn't meant to be rubbing anyone up. Go to someone with expertise for your expectation and end use. One spec does not fit all........

Ahh... Thanks Steve

Gaz Golds for road use will be (as you found out) way too HARD, I spoke to them with the initial project 924 lightweight (250kg reduction) and they advised me their valving and recommended springs would be way too hard for road use.

Even Bilstein, Spax and KW were all too hard also because they are for car's with 1.5 ton weights not 500kg lighter.
Hence I paid strong money (5K) and have dampers and Springs specially specced for the car and it's use by INTRAX from Holland. They gave me 170lb front springs, which compared to GAZ and K/W which would of been near 300+ !

You had no movement at all for british roads, and your front wishbones were at an acute angle hence you'd of had more roll than stock, Raising the ride height from the "slammed all show and no go" look will always as you found out make it much better for road use and it would of also been better on track as the correct geo will always outweight the lower centre of gravity benefit.

I seem to remember you'a also fitted incorrect offset wheels to jack them out ET23? This will play havoc with the bumpsteer and change the scrub radius making it a pig to drive as the steering wheel would be jumpy in your hands and the car would follow dips in the road and turn left or right on it's own (Bumpsteer) Again raising the car as you did would of made all these issues much less.

"The rear coilover spring was amended so it carried the weight of the car and utilising the torsion bar as a helper."

If you still had the Gaz coil spring? and the OE Torsion bar none of them are a "Helper" as they are both too strong rates.
A helper spring is used mostly to allow main springs to be fitted to dampers without having to compress them, they can also be used to seperate the main spring from being used for a certain amount of travel when used with Torsion bars. Helpers are usually all less than 10lbs rate in resistance and are designed to fully quash when loaded statically or as above with the first small amount of travel .

The other type of spring is a Tender, which is a much higher rate than a Helper, EG Main spring 500lbs, Tender 300lbs
Total Spring rate 400lbs, until one of the coils goes coilbound which is dependant of the free open lengths..

"Both suggested in various discussions not to remove the torsion bars (i've got steel v ally anyhow)"

What's Steel or Aluminium ?

R

Sorry Roger. I do not agree with some of your very assumptive comments and opinions about my car. Nothing wrong with EMC's set up as I had more track intentions at the time it was done. It was not 'slammed all show and no go' as you say. It was was set up by a highly regarded 'transaxle' motorsport company. They instructed Gaz to valve and spring the car to their calculations to work with my car and expectations. No issues with roll. No issues with jump. Yes, the wishbones were too low. But I knew the trade off. So your critique of my car also is critique of their knowledge.
Nothing wrong with the wheel offsets either. Its an early low offset car with early offset wheels.
My taste and use changed from track to more road/spring/hillclimb and I got the car amended to this by using Gavity Centre. Not because EMC was wrong. I just decided to try a new flavour set up. If the EMC set up was wrong then the suspension, springs and valving would have been binned by CG. It wasn't, it was slightly amended for its new end use.
Oh and I emitted to type steel v ally trailing arms. Given the steel are noted to be stronger than ally, if it was beneficial to ditch the TB's then it could have been done, twice. But it was suggested they should be kept.
I think we will always disagree.............but my point still stands. Get someone with knowledge (if you don't have it) to set up a car for your own expectations and end use....... []

 

[924Srr27l]

Sorry Roger. I do not agree with some of your very assumptive comments and opinions about my car. Nothing wrong with EMC's set up as I had more track intentions at the time it was done. It was not 'slammed all show and no go' as you say. It was was set up by a highly regarded 'transaxle' motorsport company. They instructed Gaz to valve and spring the car to their calculations to work with my car and expectations. No issues with roll. No issues with jump. Yes, the wishbones were too low. But I knew the trade off. So your critique of my car also is critique of their knowledge.
Nothing wrong with the wheel offsets either. Its an early low offset car with early offset wheels.
My taste and use changed from track to more road/spring/hillclimb and I got the car amended to this by using Gavity Centre. Not because EMC was wrong. I just decided to try a new flavour set up. If the EMC set up was wrong then the suspension, springs and valving would have been binned by CG. It wasn't, it was slightly amended for its new end use.
Oh and I emitted to type steel v ally trailing arms. Given the steel are noted to be stronger than ally, if it was beneficial to ditch the TB's then it could have been done, twice. But it was suggested they should be kept.
I think we will always disagree.............but my point still stands. Get someone with knowledge (if you don't have it) to set up a car for your own expectations and end use....... []

Thanks Steve I feel as a Porsche Transaxle Enthusiast it's very important that all the myths, Bull and blurb written on such forums and clubs etc...is correct, otherwise they all do the rounds become popular and people even start to believe in them!

Hence I try to keep all content factual, occasionally they'll be some opinions EG: Falken Tyres are not as good as Michelin etc..

I don't have any critique of EMC (the last time I was down there they were quite involved in preparing Ford Puma Racecars)
so they will as any business always look for other and all types of work to pay the bills. If I'm not mistaken your car was initially on the 6x15" Lattice wheels with the correct ET53 offset, but unfortunately you (as many) fell for the racey marketing from TOYO and used a set of T1-R tyres on a trackday? which melted ! ?

As you found out these tyres have sidewalls and tread blocks like soft Nougat and do nothing but squeel and overheat if subjected to abuse on a track! EMC would of advised you accordingly had they of known you were using these road tyres on a racetrack...?

I'm aware you then fitted incorrect offset ET23 Fuchs Windmill wheels 7x16 (All 4) with incorrect sized tyres
(An incorrect Profile and a smaller overall circumference -which will also read wrong on the speedo) because they fouled the arches!... Funny that!
This change (for the show look?) was like adding 43mm spacers each side!

If your wanting a better road set up and occasional sprint etc...go back to 6x15" Rims....

I don't think it's a case of disagreeing, it's either set up properly or it's not which is very common with the show scene, people that want a look but not the best handling. This thread is about fitting Coil Springs on the rear of a S2 944 and several people have illustrated this can be very harsh for road use, others find it fine this is a classic example how human driving expertise and feel differs by a big margin......

My own expectations are high and I've plenty of years of Motorsport tuning experience and expertise to draw on, thanks....

R

 

[blade7]

How many votes would it take to ban someone here?

 

[Peter Empson]

Sorry, but +1, that tone (and others I've seen in my short time back here) strikes me as unneccesarily personal (unless I'm missing something and there's some history?).

Mods please delete this post without question if you think it adds nothing but fuel whatever fire is burning. [&:]

 

[944Turbo]

Sorry, but +1, that tone (and others I've seen in my short time back here) strikes me as unneccesarily personal (unless I'm missing something and there's some history?).

Mods please delete this post without question if you think it adds nothing but fuel whatever fire is burning. [&:]

You only missed that Roger has a very one sided view on most topics and in his opinion he is always right and he has a car that is better and faster than everyone else. Also has plenty of other opinions such as f1 cars being faster on high profile tyres and its through choice not regulation etc. He will keep posting until he thinks he has conclusively proven himself right when in fact most people just get bored and go and do something else.
Tony

 

[944Turbo]

I should add -to establish some balance that he (Roger) does occasionally post something interesting.

 

[John Sims]

The joy of this forum is we don't promote "Experts". Everyone is at liberty to post and it is up to the reader to come to their own conclusions.

In the many years (it seems like hundreds) that some of us have been involved in this forum, and prior to the forum the 944 community, we have all heard, seen, and had personal experience of many many things. It does annoy me when certain people soapbox and put themselves up as the font of all knowledge on everything. There is a saying on the lines of "The more we know, the more we know we don't know."

Alternate views, and debate, raises questions. I personally find these questions interesting and don't want a situation where you just do X because Y says so.

Different experiences will see different results, and different conclusions, due to different circumstances and other arbitrary interacting factors.

We all appreciate, I hope, that Porsche did what they did based on certain compromises. This doesn't make the original solution flawed. Continued development has seen changes in technology and, as a result, what may be possible through change. What is certain though is physics hasn't changed. A well sorted, well maintained, 944 is no worse today than it was 20 years ago.

I am a great one for "I wonder what will happen if I do...." It might work, it might not, but I will still learn form the experience. Having someone say "The only way to do Y is the way I did it because I am the best and I know everything about everything." gives me no enjoyment whatsoever.

 

[924Srr27l]

its mainly to bring the rear down a bit, max about 12mm, because the front struts and springs are 20mm lower than standard
if you dont bring it down a bit it will look like a red bull F1 with its ass in the air

Very good Aerodynamically! The (Mira Wind Tunnel tested) Aero Consultant recommended at least a 15mm difference when measuring the sill height front to back. Positive rake (rear higher) promotes the air escaping the underside to join the air above it after the rear bumper in an easier transition and a smoother join is less turbulent (Less drag) = a Faster car

Adrian Newey has used this (Reverese Wing) philosophy for decades having come from an Aeronautical degree background and not Automotive, not to mention his work in Indycar's before F1 was very beneficial.....

R

 

[John Sims]

If only Porsche had spoken to some bloke at MIRA when they designed the 944. Who would have thought that a Company like Porsche would have learnt nothing from the disasters of the early 917 and would have no comprehension of the aerodynamics of the 944. I am sure they didn't bother testing anything and the plastic panels on the belly of the Turbos were just put there so that they could charge more.

I seem to recall from Adrian Newey's book that he did Aeronautical design with a view to automotive design as there wasn't courses in aerodynamics at the time, as such. And wasn't it Colin Chapman who first considered wings on an F1 car? I also seem to remember sundry references to supposition and even testing causing contrary results when put into practice and further the cars changing attitude under braking and cornering being significantly detrimental in certain cases.

I think we are reasonably safe in assuming Porsche did their homework on the 944 and an attitude close to standard is probably a fairly safe bet. YMMV.