Call for Zone 8 Rules Change Proposals for 2017

[JayG]

Has anyone looked at the proposed rule changes, especially the wheel and tire changes for SS?

Here is part of the proposed rule change
Prohibits:
Any N-spec tire with a tread wear ratings of less than 200 or any non-N-spec tire with a tread wear rating of less than 201.
Cars that came from the factory with lower treadwear rating tires must change to tires that meet the above criteria or run in CC classes.

Any factory wheels that were not either standard or a factory option for that model range. Installation of aftermarket wheels.

Installation of tires with dimensions (section width, aspect ratio, and wheel diameter) other than those available from the factory as standard or a factory option for that model range.

Now to me those changes are outrageous!. Forcing people to buy new tires if the tires that came on their car are under 200TW or they want to run competitive tires

To my knowledge, there is not a single region or zone in PCA that has such a restrictive rule

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post and send your comments in to ruleproposals@zone8.org by Oct 31 and hopefully the region presidents will not vote in this nonsense, otherwise virtually everyone running in a SS class will need to buy new tires or be FORCED into a CC class

IMHO, this is a reaction to a few rule abusers (maybe I am wrong about this)
It is an attempt to prevent SS classed cars from running RE-71, RS-3, Dunlop Star Spec, Rival S, Kumho V720, Toyo R1r, etc. and virtually any of the popular better performing tires.
Remember, if this rule change goes into effect, you most likely will have to buy new poorer performing tires to run in AX or TT or be forced in to a CC class

[rwalker]

I have read the proposed rule changes, especially the ones governing SS. I like the idea of a real showroom stock class, so I have no objections.

The new rules do force me into CC06, though. I've chosen factory non-original (but spec-matched to original optional) wheels for track duty. I chose these wheels to be able to run SS02 if I liked, but I guess rules change, c'est la vie.

[cag4]

I must say it seems a bit counter-intuitive to require drivers in showroom stock to have to change their setups away from showroom stock in order to run in showroom stock?

Honestly, if the goal is to get people out of SS and into CC, just do away with SS... some of these rules seem designed to make that happen without just doing it. Personally, I think having an SS classification is a great way to make it easy for folks to race competitively *without* having to go buy new tires, get them hooked, and hope they stick around long enough that we don't become the BMW club (struggling to cover the cost of their autocrosses).

My $.02
Charles

[c4s4pcs]

Put me down as one of the ones who would like to see SS go away. While it is touted as an "entry level" category, there will always be, as there are in almost any category, a range of drivers from brand new to very experienced. An entry level driver cannot generally expect to be competitive against a more experienced driver in similar cars. The more experienced driver, if being of a competitive soul, will do as much as possible to optimize the car for the class - whether it be the best tires that he can afford, a competition oriented alignment, reducing weight to the minimum, or ??? A new driver in a competitive sport, cannot expect to drive off the showroom and start winning their class against more experienced drivers in carefully set up cars. By the same token, aftermarket wheels and / or tires are one of the most common modifications performed on new cars. Linda buys her new 991 and promptly puts on new wheels that she likes the look of. Two weeks later, her coworker invites her to an AX. How does she feel when she finds out that her new wheels, which offer no performance advantage, force her into the dreaded "CC" classes? In my experience, modern Porsche's are very competitive in the appropriate CC classes - particularly when tires, alignment and weight are optimized. A good driver in a correctly classified car be competitive in their CC class. The best thing that I have seen in AX and TT was the introduction of the CC classes - any driver in any Porsche can find a class, and then optimize as much or as little as they wish - you can stay competitive in your "base" CC class with moderate expenses, or take almost any car as fast as you wish, as long as the pocketbook holds out. No matter what class that you build to, the cars will be competitive with each other - and the ones built closest to the edge of the rules is frequently the fastest. That's racing.

[JayG]

This is not about eliminating SS classes, but a change to the rules for SS

Here is a thread about elimination of SS classes from a few years ago
I guess this comes up just about every year

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6094&hilit=Rules+change

[Cajundaddy]

Much ado about nothing here I believe. The current proposal for SS classes simply aligns them more closely with PCA National Parade rules for showroom stock classes. Most PCA regions carry very similar rules requiring OEM wheels and tires for showroom stock classes. We were the outlier by allowing aftermarket wheels and tires that created a lot of heartburn among folks running bone stock cars against cars sporting ulta-lightweight, very expensive, competition wheels in smaller diameters, wider widths, and sticky RE-71r tires. This proposal eliminates that loophole and allows showroom stock cars to compete fairly with other showroom stock cars.

Can anyone name the cars available from the factory with N-spec tires rated below 200? Yes the GT3 and GT4. These are effectively fully functional race cars with plates. Do they really belong in SS classes on Cup II racing rubber against other 981s on regular street tires? Maybe not. This proposal improves fairness and good sportsmanship among all SS class competitors.

[SuperCobraPilot]

This is all well and good if you happen to have a newer car with 19 or 20 inch wheels and there are numerous "LEGAL" tire options. I have a 2004 Turbo Cabriolet and a 2004 GT3 that both require 295-30-18 rears. If you have about 3 seconds, you can see how few tires are made in that size. My N-spec choices would be PZeros (Crap) and PS2s (Overpriced). I started Autocrossing last year mid-season with the GT3 shod with Falken FK453 tires. I took 3rd in class for the season and had some really good competitive events with Angela and Tiffany Avitt, winning some and not winning others. 2016 rolls around and they show up with RE-71Rs and I am suddenly 2-3 seconds behind them. In the spirit of SS, I went out and replaced the shot 300TW Falkens with the tires that came on the GT3 new; S-02s (140 TW). I got closer but couldn't get ahead. Mid year this year I got a smoking deal on a second set of factory GT3 wheels and hung the RE-71Rs (went DOWN to 285 in the rear). Back in the swing of things again... Good grip, last reasonably well, half the price of PS2s, WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE???

By broad-stroking the rules to hide banning of a specific tire, (Let's be realistic, this is what it is really about, isn't it?) you are disabling a significant number of members' ability to affordably enjoy entry level motorsport and friendly competition. CC class is for people who want to modify their cars... that's great. They can spend tens of thousands of dollars prepping/modifying their cars, manipulating their points to get in the class they want...you name it... but You expect everyone else to not even be able to mount DOT-Legal tires on their car because of a vocal minority? To be honest I am wondering where that minority is because when I look around the paddock or get in the car with a student, there are an awful lot of RE-71Rs out there, with happy drivers.

Let me put this another way: This ridiculous rule change passes. In SS07, Angela has to go back to, say, PS2s which I think they were running last year when I started. I select a different, 201+ tire and we are back at it just like before, and during our time with RE-71Rs. NO DIFFERENCE HAS OCCURRED. We are still competitive when on similar grip tires and one has to drive well to beat the other. All you've done is cost us more money.

I am not modifying an extremely rare 911 in order to be more competitive with people who game the game with their entire car, not just tires. I am also not going to spend $2K every time I turn around to replace tires that a small group have single handedly and wrongheadedly dictated I have to have in order to preserve THEIR definition of Stock. Ponder this: I SPECIFICALLY bought FACTORY wheels for my car for a second set, in order to preserve the stock nature of the car. Whoever is behind this nonsense is effectively telling me that in addition to the RE-71Rs which were introduced 11 years after my car was delivered, I shouldn't be able to legally run the tires that came on my car in 2004!!!! Really??!! Get a grip-- literally AND figuratively... I suppose you'll dictate that older 911s have to have bias-ply tires since that is how they were delivered?

[ttweed]

Much ado about nothing here I believe. The current proposal for SS classes simply aligns them more closely with PCA National Parade rules for showroom stock classes. Most PCA regions carry very similar rules requiring OEM wheels and tires for showroom stock classes. We were the outlier by allowing aftermarket wheels and tires that created a lot of heartburn among folks running bone stock cars against cars sporting ulta-lightweight, very expensive, competition wheels in smaller diameters, wider widths, and sticky RE-71r tires. This proposal eliminates that loophole and allows showroom stock cars to compete fairly with other showroom stock cars.

Can anyone name the cars available from the factory with N-spec tires rated below 200? Yes the GT3 and GT4. These are effectively fully functional race cars with plates. Do they really belong in SS classes on Cup II racing rubber against other 981s on regular street tires? Maybe not. This proposal improves fairness and good sportsmanship among all SS class competitors.

The part of this rule change that brings us in line with the PCRs is in requiring OEM wheels and tire sizes. I can see doing that. The original point of these SS classes was to allow folks to prep their cars for the Parade autocross competition, so I understand aligning our rules with the PCRs. The part involving changing the treadwear rating to 201 or higher does not concur with the 2016 PCRs as quoted below:

Only original equipment manufacturer (OEM) wheels
as originally specified and OEM tire sizes as originally
provided and/or specified for each specific model year
are permitted. All Showroom Stock class tires must
have a tread wear rating of 180 or greater.

This is exactly how the proposal should read, if we are going to change the SS rules, IMHO, since the desire to align with the PCRs is actually mentioned in the justification for this proposal. So why contradict this desire with the deviation into N-spec and non-N-spec treadwear ratings? I agree with Owen that it seems to clearly be some kind of a sour-grapes attempt to disallow the RE-71R tire in SS (as well as the entire crop of other comparable 200 UTQG AX tires). Eliminating the best AX tire options for people running in SS is silly. If you want to kill the SS class participation, this proposal would be a great way to do it.

Additionally, requiring the GT3 and GT4 to change their tires to run in stock class is ridiculous. Why should they be singled out? They are not actually classed as claimed above: "Do they really belong in SS classes on Cup II racing rubber against other 981s on regular street tires?" There are no "981s on regular street tires" classified with the GT3 or GT4 in SS except the 2016 Boxster Spyder, which is classed with the 2004-2005 996 GT3 in SS07, and it has similar speed potential. There are no "regular" 981s classed in SS08 with the GT4 at all. Besides, the Cup2 is no more "racing rubber" than the RE-71R, despite its lower 180 treadwear rating.

TT

[Andrew Raines]

The forum comments are entertaining but there is no guarantee that the rules committee will see them. They are clear in stating, "Please send all comments to ruleproposals@zone8.org"

I hope you are taking that step.

Andrew

[jbrennen]

Do we want a class where folks are *encouraged* to run the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2?

That's the N-rated 220 TW tire that caused multiple PDS students to recently be told midway through the PDS that they needed to buy new tires to continue on Day 2.


Somebody please convince me that there's a tire model out there that would be legal under the proposed SS rules that can actually hold up to being autocrossed hard. Right now, I'm a skeptic.

I would have suggested the Michelin Pilot Super Sport, but a couple of other experienced autocrossers have complained of premature failures on that tire model when driven hard.

[JayG]

Much ado about nothing here I believe. The current proposal for SS classes simply aligns them more closely with PCA National Parade rules for showroom stock classes. Most PCA regions carry very similar rules requiring OEM wheels and tires for showroom stock classes. We were the outlier by allowing aftermarket wheels and tires that created a lot of heartburn among folks running bone stock cars against cars sporting ulta-lightweight, very expensive, competition wheels in smaller diameters, wider widths, and sticky RE-71r tires. This proposal eliminates that loophole and allows showroom stock cars to compete fairly with other showroom stock cars.

Can anyone name the cars available from the factory with N-spec tires rated below 200? Yes the GT3 and GT4. These are effectively fully functional race cars with plates. Do they really belong in SS classes on Cup II racing rubber against other 981s on regular street tires? Maybe not. This proposal improves fairness and good sportsmanship among all SS class competitors.

The part of this rule change that brings us in line with the PCRs is in requiring OEM wheels and tire sizes. I can see doing that. The original point of these SS classes was to allow folks to prep their cars for the Parade autocross competition, so I understand aligning our rules with the PCRs. The part involving changing the treadwear rating to 201 or higher does not concur with the 2016 PCRs as quoted below:

Only original equipment manufacturer (OEM) wheels
as originally specified and OEM tire sizes as originally
provided and/or specified for each specific model year
are permitted. All Showroom Stock class tires must
have a tread wear rating of 180 or greater.

This is exactly how the proposal should read, if we are going to change the SS rules, IMHO, since the desire to align with the PCRs is actually mentioned in the justification for this proposal. So why contradict this desire with the deviation into N-spec and non-N-spec treadwear ratings? I agree with Owen that it seems to clearly be some kind of a sour-grapes attempt to disallow the RE-71R tire in SS (as well as the entire crop of other comparable 200 UTQG AX tires). Eliminating the best AX tire options for people running in SS is silly. If you want to kill the SS class participation, this proposal would be a great way to do it.

Additionally, requiring the GT3 and GT4 to change their tires to run in stock class is ridiculous. Why should they be singled out? They are not actually classed as claimed above: "Do they really belong in SS classes on Cup II racing rubber against other 981s on regular street tires?" There are no "981s on regular street tires" classified with the GT3 or GT4 in SS except the 2016 Boxster Spyder, which is classed with the 2004-2005 996 GT3 in SS07, and it has similar speed potential. There are no "regular" 981s classed in SS08 with the GT4 at all. Besides, the Cup2 is no more "racing rubber" than the RE-71R, despite its lower 180 treadwear rating.

Tt

Do we want a class where folks are *encouraged* to run the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2?

That's the N-rated 220 TW tire that caused multiple PDS students to recently be told midway through the PDS that they needed to buy new tires to continue on Day 2.


Somebody please convince me that there's a tire model out there that would be legal under the proposed SS rules that can actually hold up to being autocrossed hard. Right now, I'm a skeptic.

I would have suggested the Michelin Pilot Super Sport, but a couple of other experienced autocrossers have complained of premature failures on that tire model when driven hard.

Andrew is correct, you MUST send you comments to: ruleproposals@zone8.org

Tom makes very good points.
The problem right now is that the proposed changes pending approval are etched in stone., They cannot be modified now
180TW is also more inline with other regions/zones.

There is another huge problem with the proposed rule how it is written
In the current rule, it was very specific to what wheel could be on which axle as well as a specific restriction on track width.
Unless I am way off on my reading of the proposed rule, the proposed rule has neither. There is nothing that would prevent one from adding big spacers or using rear wheels on the front, which to my knowledge is what one of the issues was that predicated this rule change.

For that reason alone, it should not be adopted

Jack also make a very good point. None of the 200TW N spec or 201TW+ non N spec tires are well suited to AX or track
Maybe there is one that is suitable, but to have just 1 tire that is suitable is not a very good thing.

BTW, from the Porsche approved tire charts:
one factory tire on 987 S, Spyder & R and 997 is Potenza RE050A which is 140 TW
959's have RE-71 as the factory N spec !
993 & 986 - Potenza S-02/S-02A - 140 TW

It appears that there are a bunch of N spec factory tires that are under 200TW on many different models

I contend that tires as they are currently allowed are an even playing field for SS classes as within a class, if one of the models can get "sticky tires" they all can. Sure, maybe a specific tire in a specific size is not available, but a slightly different size or a similar tire is.

If the idea is to make "showroom stock cars to compete fairly with other showroom stock cars" then things like a PDK need to be taken into the equation in class grouping. A case in point; at our AX this weekend, there was a long straight at the top of the course with hard right turn at the end. I know in my car, I hit the rev limiter in 2nd about 2/3 of the way down the straight, so I had to upshift to 3rd and then brake and downshift to 2nd before the corner. Is there anyone that would say a PDK was not an advantage in that corner?

[marcus981]

If the idea is to make "showroom stock cars to compete fairly with other showroom stock cars" then things like a PDK need to be taken into the equation in class grouping. A case in point; at our AX this weekend, there was a long straight at the top of the course with hard right turn at the end. I know in my car, I hit the rev limiter in 2nd about 2/3 of the way down the straight, so I had to upshift to 3rd and then brake and downshift to 2nd before the corner. Is there anyone that would say a PDK was not an advantage in that corner?

Sorry for the tangent, but to address Jay's PDK comment: Yes, I would say PDK wasn't an advantage for most people in that corner. Gear ratio and/or rev-limit was actually the advantage for that particular straight.

PDK has faster shifting, but also different gear ratios. The faster shifting part didn't come into play there. The 2nd gear in both my 981 7-speed PDK Cayman AND the 5-speed of the 1981 911sc Smurf go up to about 76-78mph at their respective rev limit, so I never got out of 2nd yesterday in Smurf. Some 981 guys I talked to said their cars briefly shifted to 3rd there, but that was the same time they started braking (so no help). PDK shifting speed isn't a factor at most AX's, with the exception of the single 1-2 shift on a course with a drag-strip start (not yesterday's course). But, you could also argue that the shorter ratio for your 2nd gear is an advantage for you to be in a better power band during other parts of the course compared to those with taller gearing. At some AX's, your gear ratios may be ideal, while at other AX's, you may wish for different/taller gearing.

I'm not opposed to a small adjustment in points for PDK (since PDK does make a bigger impact based on the number of shifts at DE/TT events, even though its gear ratios may be less ideal for some tracks), but I don't think PDK should affect SS classification, as you have proposed before. The variation in capabilities between some models that are grouped within the same SS classes are much wider than simply PDK vs. no PDK. So having PDK shouldn't knock a car out of that SS class.

[JayG]

In my 986S 6 speed, 2nd at the rev limiter is 68 and I had to up shift well before the braking cones

[ttweed]

Andrew is correct, you MUST send you comments to: ruleproposals@zone8.org

I'm going to rate this statement "mostly true," since you should email your comments to be sure they are recorded, but I also know Russell is "mining" this forum for input, as I have seen comments I have made on this forum over the last few years show up in the official Proposals documents without my ever emailing them in.

The problem right now is that the proposed changes pending approval are etched in stone., They cannot be modified now.

This is not true. Read Section IV. B. of the rules. It states: "This draft proposal will be placed on the web site for further public review from Sep 15-Oct 31. Using this proposal and any comments it generates, the committee will then generate the official rule change proposal." Thus, the Rules Committee still has an opportunity to revise the current proposals before final submission to the Zone Presidents for a vote after Nov. 7, based on the comments the members make before Oct. 31.

There is another huge problem with the proposed rule how it is written
In the current rule, it was very specific to what wheel could be on which axle as well as a specific restriction on track width.
Unless I am way off on my reading of the proposed rule, the proposed rule has neither. There is nothing that would prevent one from adding big spacers or using rear wheels on the front, which to my knowledge is what one of the issues was that predicated this rule change.

This is also not true. The current rules do not allow this due to the existing wording regarding SS modifications not allowed under Section 1. a) and o), neither of which are being changed under this proposal. They say: "a) Any aftermarket enhancement listed in Section III that is not mentioned in the above list of allowed modifications" (which would disallow any increase in track over 2"), and "o). Installation of factory or aftermarket front wheels with a width greater than the widest front wheels available from the factory for that model range, and rear wheels with a width greater than the widest rear wheels available from the factory for that model range; any increase in track (front or rear) greater than 14mm over stock" (which would not allow switching front and rear wheels of a modern staggered setup or increase track over 14mm from stock).

TT

[cag4]

Do we want a class where folks are *encouraged* to run the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2?

That's the N-rated 220 TW tire that caused multiple PDS students to recently be told midway through the PDS that they needed to buy new tires to continue on Day 2.


Somebody please convince me that there's a tire model out there that would be legal under the proposed SS rules that can actually hold up to being autocrossed hard. Right now, I'm a skeptic.

I would have suggested the Michelin Pilot Super Sport, but a couple of other experienced autocrossers have complained of premature failures on that tire model when driven hard.

To Jack Brennan's point, I had the opportunity to run Katrin's 2005 base Boxster (SS02) at this weekend's event (in CC09, since the 70RSR had transmission issues). It is as bone stock as a car can be, and was on 1 year old Pilot Super Sports (maybe 5K miles and one previous autocross). Prior to timed runs the front left was chunking. I decided to make 1 timed run to salvage whatever points I could, and checked to see if the issue was getting worse after that run. It seemed stable enough to make 2 more runs, but I wanted to a) make sure I got home and b) not ruin my marriage by blowing a tire on Katrin's car(!), so called it quits.

As a street tire, I'm sure those tires are fine, but I'm certainly not going to buy another set now, on the off chance that I can coax Katrin out for another autocross, and/or in case I have to borrow it again. My preference would be to buy a set of Bridgestone RE-11's, a 200TW tire which is a great street tire and a very predictable and stable track tire, ideal for people learning to drive in a performance environment (auto-x, DE).

The result of that fairly rational tire purchasing decision? Katrin's bone-stock, base Boxster would be classified in CC-06, competing against, for instance, Mark Curran's 911 racer. Is this what we want? It is my opinion that we will lose newbies if we force them to run tires that come apart after a few events (possibly scaring them, costing them money, or even damaging their wheels/cars), or compete against dedicated track cars/drivers before they are ready to. Again, my opinion, but the long-term impact of throwing newbies in the deep end is fewer folks who mature into the CC classes, eventually leaving us with an aging and declining base of drivers, instructors and volunteers.