This is a continuation of a technical discussion of one of the Zone 8 driving event rules that began in another thread here: http://forum.pcasdr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3647&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30 It was suggested there that the topic should have its own thread, so I am starting this one to keep the discussion more focused.
Every ruleset is subject to interpretation, and I do not presume to be an expert on the subject, but there seems to be widespread confusion over this provision in Sec II. F. regarding competing in a "higher class." The exact wording of the rule is as follows:
"Entrants may compete in a higher class as long as the car conforms to the rules for that class. Cars may move up vertically or horizontally, but not backwards, into a higher class. A car in class CP, for example, may run in AI or FP, but not in FS. Anyone electing to run in a higher class must have competition in that class in order to receive award points for the event." The reference to moving up "vertically or horizontally, but not backwards, into a higher class" refers to the class progression chart above it, in Section II. D.
It seems obvious to me from the wording of the rule (and the specific example given within it) that the provision in II.F. is intended to allow an exception to the "base class" model definitions contained in part II.B., for the purpose of enhancing competition. There are a number of good reasons for allowing such an exception. Off the top of my head, these might include the fact that if someone has no competition in a class, they can "move up" to a higher class using this provision, to compete against a greater number of drivers in faster cars. It also allows someone who suffers a breakdown at an event to still try to collect some points in their class towards a year-end award by possibly borrowing a car from someone else for timed runs, even though the "loaner" car may be classified in a lower class than their usual entry. I know this has happened many times at our events over the years, and people were grateful that they had a way to continue competing. It also allows an owner to substitute another of their own Porsches (if they are lucky enough to own more than one) for an event or two if their primary ride in the series is disabled or unavailable for some reason (as Jennifer did in the 10/04 event, driving her L-class Boxster in KI). I have seen instances where the rule has been utilized to allow an owner to invite a hotshoe to co-drive their car to see what it can do without jeopardizing their own chance of winning the class--the hotshoe can simply enter a higher class so as not to compromise the owner's results.
Nevertheless, the comments that cropped up in the other thread reminded me how differently people can interpret specific wording, especially out of context. I saw things like "I thought 911s are excluded from G class" and "To run in G class, wouldn't you have to conform to the the rules for that class (i.e. be one of these cars in G class: 944 2.5 & 2.7, 924S 2.5, 924 Turbo 2.0, 944S 2.5)?" Keep in mind that the overall heading of section II is "DRIVING EVENT CLASSES" and the intent of section II. F. is to provide for an exception to these "base classification" definitions, allowing someone to compete outside of those specifications. This is the "context" that must be considered. The reference to "conforming to the rules for that class" concerns only the other rules outside of Section II, such as the added safety requirements in higher classes, etc., not the "base model definitions" that are contained in Section II itself, since II. F. provides the exception from those classing requirements within it.
The specific example given in the rule supports this and contradicts the previously quoted comments about "conforming to the class rule" of being only a particular model or type of car. If a CP class car can move up to FP, as it says, this is no different than an FP car moving up to GP. A C class car could be a mid-engined 914 or a front-engined 924. In the F class, there are only rear-engined cars (356 4-cams and 911s). There are no 914s or 924s in the F base classification scheme, yet the example specifically says they can run there. How could it be any different for G class? Why would 944s be "protected" against competition from rear or mid-engined cars in lower classes moving up according to this provision?
The overall intent of the rules is to separate classes by relative speed potential to level and enhance competition. The progression of classes from A-Z, as well as from S/S to R, represents a "hierarchy of speed" from slowest to fastest. The presumption is that a C class car is slower than an F class car, and that an F class car is slower than one in G class, in the base configuration (without improvements). If someone wants to run against faster cars for the enhanced competition, this rule allows it, regardless of the base classification of their car, or the type of models in the class they move up into.
Let me address some of the other "facts" offered by Dan Chambers in the previous thread:
"G class is specifically for front engined cars. Is the 911 a front-engined car? (Only when I spin. ) Would it not be DQ'ed for (dare I say it) the "engine being in the wrong place" for that class?"
This is not true. There is no intent in the rules to separate front-engined cars from rear or mid-engined ones (they are actually mixed together in quite a few classes), or to disqualify rear-engined cars from G class. In fact, the F and G classes merge in the progression at FI and run together from there all the way to AR2!
"G-class cars weight is roughly 2700 to 3100 lbs wouldn't a light-weight 911 take huge ( I mean HUGE) points for weight reduction based on G-class weight?"
No. Points are assessed for weight and other modifications according to the car's base classification, regardless of the class in which it is entered. See Section III of the rules.
"G-class cars spot in at roughly 139-HP. Wouldn't a race-modified 911 engine have much bigger HP, (say 160+) or higher displacement issues causing huge ( I mean HUGE) HP/power points based on G-class spec's?"
F class cars can start out at about 100 HP and 1.6 liters displacement (356 4-cam), and none of them has higher than 140 HP and 2.4 liters displacement in stock form, which is totally comparable to G class. Modifications of displacement or HP draw the same points penalties in either class, but are assessed according to the model of car, not the class that is entered, same as above. Why are you talking about a "race-modified 911 engine" anyway? A 944 engine can be equally "race-modified". If you are referring to my car, it has a bone-stock 911SC engine swapped into it, which is why it is in P class and not S.
"If you add the additional points of weight and HP would you not find yourself in FI class based on G-class regulation points? G-class cars are 4-cylinder cars. Wouldn't a 911 be DQ'ed for having 6 cylinders?"
There are no "G-class regulations" for points assessment (see above). There is nothing in the rules anywhere that says that any class is restricted to a certain number of cylinders. For that matter, a 944 could have a 928 engine swapped into it and still run in G class with 8 cylinders.
I frankly cannot understand where the notion that an F class 911 is an overdog against a 944 comes from. HP is comparable, and the weight difference should be offset by the superior handling from the 944's 50-50 weight distribution and the ability to run 225 tires without penalty, while a 911 is restricted to 205s. I think Morgan Trotter's performance in the last few events in a 944 Spec car (which I understand could qualify to run in GP class) severely trouncing every other F, G and even H class car entered is indicative of the fact that more often it is the driver making the difference and not the car. If there is a legitimate beef against any 911 (even the weakest examples such as those in F class) running straight up against a 944, let's hear it. If that is truly the case, then G-class 944s should be reclassified to a new D class so that the hierarchy of our classification scheme reflects their speed potential accurately. I don't believe that would reflect reality, though, myself.
Everybody has an opinion, and I would certainly like to hear from all the other competitors, experts and "rules lawyers" out there about their take on this rule, especially those with more experience than myself on these questions (Steve G., Paul Y., John S. and Tom B. would certainly qualify in that respect).
TT