Here is a thought around BRI and classifications....

[Mike]

2 issues, the first is an easy fix.

BRI issue.

So Roland was in HM last year but the new rules have put his HM car in with AM. Seems only fair then the BRI in AM would default to the higher of last years HM or AM indexes. AM is 1.074 and HM was 1.108. Perhaps the new AM BRI should be 1.108 to reflect the recent rules change. Last year no one had an issue with Roland's times and BRI in HM, right?

2nd issue.
HM and AM combined.
It appears someone in PCA HM had no one to race and realized he could trounce the AM cars and made a rules suggestion that has been implemented to do just that.

Kary suggests his 993 could never be competitive to Roland’s AM car. Roland’s lighter car with similar hp/tire obliterates the advantages of Kary’s ABS and superior 5th generation suspension.

That gives some perspective to the predicament of last years winning AM cars. Due to rule changes last years AM cars with smaller SC Flares/tires, less HP (no ABS) and about the same weight are now classed the same as Roland’s wide body 3.6 SC.

It’s kinda funny because Roland did not build his car to leverage the AM rules, the rules just happen to change to fit his car perfectly.

It’s the same old story whenever class specifications change. That is why I stopped trying to build a car to any one organizations class specifications.
Class specifications change without warning and rarely cross over between racing organizations.
Build the Porsche you want.

[kary]

Build the Porsche you want.

Yeap, that is what I am doing. I agree entirely. Enough of this BRI stuff for me.....

[Red Rooster]

....It appears someone in PCA HM had no one to race and realized he could trounce the AM cars and made a rules suggestion that has been implemented to do just that.

....Due to rule changes last years AM cars with smaller SC Flares/tires, less HP (no ABS) and about the same weight are now classed the same as Roland’s wide body 3.6 SC.

....It’s kinda funny because Roland did not build his car to leverage the AM rules, the rules just happen to change to fit his car perfectly.


Build the Porsche you want.

I paraphrased you Mike, but you said it perfectly.

I hate to say it, but at an avg. of $275.00/event how many times does one pay to get a black eye before enough is enough and one looks for another venue with more even car classifications.

Specifically, since later model 911's have a higher base H.P. rating from the factory than the early T & E's they take a smaller point penalty when upgrading to a larger more powerful engine. To put it another way, if a 69T and a 81SC both do the idential suspension upgrades, the the 69T has to take more points for the same size larger engine since he started with a lower base H.P.

Based on the above, the early car is left with fewer remaining point before being bumped up a class, the later car likely has more points for further improvements before reaching the allowable max.

So now in '05 and by pure default, Roland now finds himself with a 270+h.p. widebody "mid-year" 911 in what has seemed to always be a 220hp. narrow body "early" 911 class.

Trout fishing with dynamite? maybe......

Noting that many of the participants of this thread are not in AM, I pose this question:

In your class how would you personally feel if the new rules allowed another newer model Porsche of nearly the same weight, and with the proper mix of engine/suspension points taken, to compete with you in the same class with 50+ more h.p. and an equal amount more torque and equal if not better suspension upgrades because of extra points left over?

Ask anyone who is familiar with the AM class and you will hear that turning 1:55's in a near stock 3.2L powered early 911 at Fontana is pretty darn respectble, sure there's room for a little improvement..but not much in Fact last year at this same event Mike Gagen, who I think we all know as one of the faster AM drivers was turning 1:57's in the PCA Club race qualifying and Sprint races in a nearly identical car (yes, my car is a near clone of his - and just as well prepared thank you Mr. Brand).

By Sunday morning this year, I was cosistantly beating his best by 2 sec...
So yeah, there might be another 1.5 - 2 max seconds I could shave off..and I'll certianly continue to try and improve....

But 1:51's at Fontana in a Either Mike's or my 3.2? If you think you can do it without crashing or breaking my car, I'll gladly throw you my keys... and that's a promise.

Oh and Kary made a darn good point.....

"...Enough of this BRI stuff for me....." I agree !!!

[Red Rooster]

...... I hate to see someone like Dan Andrews turn his cool gulf car into some giant winged monster.

..... But, then again, if you can change your cams, short gears, and add an airplane wing, and still stay in class.....

Doesn't this sound like the red car in the picture....... ?:rockon:

[Curt]

One of the problems with the PCA rules is that there are no upper end limits. AM class rules show 4 points for a tire that is over 245. The most tire any of us RS bodied cars can fit is a 275 in back. But that 275 is the same amount of points as a 295 or a 315 or a 335 or a 385 or a 1275, catch my drift?

It also says any aerodynamic aid is 2 points. Well, an RS front bumper is exactly the same downforce as a perfectly legal 0 point 911S front bumper, except it allows an opening for oil cooling. Guess what? Bend over, it's two points. May as well put on a ducktail which provides about as much downforce as if a bee landed on your stock decklid while you were driving. OR those same two points can be spent on spoilers, splitters, dive planes, diffusers and wings with ZERO limitations as to size or heighth. Why not buy wings from an F-117 or from a $1,000,000 2005 Lemans Prototype because it is the same amount of points as us using what was available over the Porsche parts counter 32 years ago!!!!!

An increase in track of over 2" costs us points. We have increased our track by 3". I mean, who's going to complain about being increased by 3"? Well, none of us, until we see Rolands extra inches. It makes us feel like we are showering next to Shaq.



All these issues are totally dealt with in the POC rules. You want to run a 10"or 12" rim instead of 9"? You have to add alot of extra weight to your car. You are not allowed to run any wing wider than 60" no higher than the roof line of your car and it must not extend past the back bumper. PCA says throw whatever the heck you want up there, as high as you want. Could I pull a hang glider behind me who could at least radio me when I'm about to be passed? Of course I can, BUT IT'S TWO POINTS!!!!!! A ducktail? You want to run a ducktail in POC's V3, it's zero points. The big wing and splitter is 3 points!! Hello? Of course it is, it actually does something!!!!!!! You want to run a 3.6 in an earlier car in the POC V classes? Your car better weigh what the 3.6's donor car weighed AND you have to take all the points for the motor, or say hello to V1 or V0. YIKES!

I just thought of something even scarier. What if someone started with an 84-89 3.2 Carrera and took the same 600cc increase as Roland but ran a stock 3.8 RSR motor and double oversized turbo flared body. That should fit nicely into AM, or maybe even FI......

Take what I say with a grain of salt. Roland could beat me if he was on a big wheel and according to our classes and rules he's not doing anything wrong. I think I found my true calling though. Last weekend I ran with the Alfa club in a TT in the west Speedway parking lot. I love beating up on cars with 1/2 my horsepower, that's good clean fun! TTOD baby! And that was after my electrical fire on the freeway in the rain Saturday morning. I love these old cars, no REALLY I do

[ttweed]

Oh and Kary made a darn good point.....
"...Enough of this BRI stuff for me....." I agree !!!

I will repeat my earlier assertion-- you guys are banging your heads against a wall trying to apply an autox index to big track events. You need to develop an independent Big Track Index (BTI) to substitute for the BRI in these types of events.

The wide track, setup changes and aero aids that are such a boon at the Speedway are much less important on a tight, low-speed autox course, and can actually be a detriment. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want an index to compare "bench-racing" times for a Time Trial, develop a new one! Don't screw up the autox index trying to adjust it for big track performance.

TT

[ttweed]

One of the problems with the PCA rules is that there are no upper end limits.

Sounds like there are some legitimate rule issues here that should be taken up in the formal Zone 8 rule change process. I made a proposal last year about the stock engine transplant issue being linked to the update/backdate rule which would have helped, but it was not adopted. I am going to submit it again. Perhaps some changes in the tire width/track increase/aero-aid rules should be suggested as well.

The rules are set for this year, so there's no point crying over spilt milk, but we have the opportunity and process to change the rules to promote more equal competition, so let's use it!

TT

[gulf911]

...... I hate to see someone like Dan Andrews turn his cool gulf car into some giant winged monster.

..... But, then again, if you can change your cams, short gears, and add an airplane wing, and still stay in class.....

Doesn't this sound like the red car in the picture....... ?:rockon:

Thanks Bob, And I don't especially like doing it either. I only added a 'borrowed' wing to help with the major float I felt with the duck tail around the bank 2 years ago. Unfortunately there are many other mods that need to be done to stay competitive on a big track (starting with my right foot), with moded motors , trans. and suspension. Luckily, it appears I can add lots and lots of stuff and stay in AM!! Oh Well, its only money.... Maybe I am just harboring some deep down hostility for Roland coming in right behind me and knocking me out of TTOD by .02 at an AX a couple years ago!... Thats the closest I'll ever get to him...

[bobbrand]

I am low in points for my current class anyway.

This was my point before. If you are low in your points for your current class, then we should not adjust the BRI index to allow you to score high in the BRI, because then if you added all of those points, you would be off the chart (or somebody else with a fully prepared car in your class would be). Either that, or you have to change the BRI index to be based on actual points instead of class, or base it on individual cars -- both ideas are probably impractical.

[Otto]

I agree with you Bob that the BRI Index for a given class should, in its most basic form, be based on a fully-modified car for the class driven by the best driver. And I agree with you Tom that we should develop a BRI Index for TT Events, maybe individualized to each major track we run in and based on the fully modified/best driver principle stated above. Carl, you thought it could be done by track and you are the BRI Guru, can you work on something like that based on accumulated data? Obviously it is something that will take some time to perfect and will have to eventually tie with any Classification rule changes that are made for 2006.

[pdy]

Not a BRI point, but in defense of the rules. Roland's '81 911 has a 230kg (over 500lbs) weight penalty compared to a '69 911. This carries into class progressions. In other words, he starts with more displacement and power, so takes less points to get to, say, 300hp. He also takes more points to get down to 2000lb (or he spends his points elsewhere and carries the weight penalty).

John Shirk suggested years ago that PCA just have one class. That's what TTOD is. While the BRI is fun, I agree that it is tough to reconcile between AX and TT, and even different venues for these events. That's why we have rules, which I think you'd have to admit do a decent job of giving folks a chance to "Build the Porsche they want" and not be totally uncompetitive.

We all have still much to learn, but our club has some absolutely superb drivers - truly a pleasure to see them at work/play. I feel I am relatively better at big tracks than autocross events, so that may affect my BRI performance. But I'll be there tomorrow, ready to learn, have fun, and check out my BRI too!

[kary]

I am low in points for my current class anyway.

This was my point before. If you are low in your points for your current class, then we should not adjust the BRI index to allow you to score high in the BRI, because then if you added all of those points, you would be off the chart (or somebody else with a fully prepared car in your class would be). Either that, or you have to change the BRI index to be based on actual points instead of class, or base it on individual cars -- both ideas are probably impractical.

Bob
I am not asking to change my BRI index I am saying the index we have does not work for time trial.
As I have read through this thread I have come to the conclusion I do not care any longer as most here do not seem to see that there are many issues with it for many folks other than me. Further amazing to me are people making general statements about driver ability based on this flawed BRI index.

Once folks drive for a few more years on big tracks and familarize themselves with other club rules like POC they will realize the ridiculous nature of the BRI and class rules we have now for time trial.

[Curt]

Kary,
I am probably the one you are amazed by. My comments about someone clearly being the best driver in the club because they won the BRI was just intended to be funny. I argued so much against that BRI in the past that I'm surprised Carl didn't smash me over the head with a tire iron for bitching so much.

Dan Chambers and Carl finally turned me around on the BRI and I look at it for what it is, just a fun little diversion. Don't you remember I kept calling it the Dolphin Waxing award and Carl went out and got a freaking Dolphin trophy to give the BRI winner. If that's not a funny, funny move on Carls part, I don't know what is.

[Kim Crosser]

The BRI is indeed just for fun - no need to take it too seriously.

For those of us in non- (or minimally-) prepared cars, it is just fun to have a way to get in the "top 10", whereas we don't have much of a chance on raw times against high horsepower and slicks.

Unless a whole set of factors were entered, any given set of BRI ratings would only be valid for a single course. Even in the same lot at the Q, different tracks can skew the results (e.g., long and/or uphill straights favor horsepower, tight and twisty favors wide rubber and balanced cars, etc.). BRIs for a SouthEast lot track could easily be quite different than for a West lot track.

When you start factoring in class points (and whether or not certain modifications count as points) making a consistent and "fair" BRI index scheme is clearly an impossible task.

If someone is really interested in waxing that dolphin, the one factor that is unambiguous and that might partially resolve AX vs. TT factors is track length. What would happen if the factor for each class were a function of the length of the track? (Not just a linear scaling factor, but actually different factor values [or even a real mathematical function] for each class based on track lengths.)

Anyone want to play with this (at least until you need glasses)?

[MikeD]

Oh and Kary made a darn good point.....
"...Enough of this BRI stuff for me....." I agree !!!

I will repeat my earlier assertion-- you guys are banging your heads against a wall trying to apply an autox index to big track events. You need to develop an independent Big Track Index (BTI) to substitute for the BRI in these types of events.

I couldn't agree more Tom. I was thinking the exact same thing as I read down this thread. IMHO, neither the BRI or the class structure should be valid for big track events. They should be limited in scope to ONLY include parking lot events and that's all. I think we should be using the PCA Club Racing class structure for TT's at the big tracks. I've thought that for over a year now and no one has convinced me otherwise.

added later

Here's some interesting food for thought. When my car is fully PCA D prepared it will be in MI. Jack is in KI for TT/AX but D for Club Racing. Otto, I believe your car would be a D car (maybe E depending on your mods). Jad's Turbo is a D car. MJ Nettle's is a D car (I think). Martin is in D. How many other D cars are out there?

Has anyone ever thought about how many cars would be competing in class if we went by Club Racing classes for TT's? A whole LOT