What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Porsche Technical related discussions.

What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby ttweed on Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:43 pm

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. :burnout: ) 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
Tom Tweed -- #908
SDR Tech Inspection Chair 2005-06
SDR Forum Admin 2010-present
Windblown Witness Assistant Editor 2012-present
Driving Porsches since 1964
User avatar
ttweed
Admin
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:13 am
Location: La Jolla, CA

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby Dan Chambers on Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:50 pm

Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. This is going to be one fun year ahead. I'm going to enjoy it this time around. From my seat in the stands in IS (maybe IP?) I can look back on all the fervor of the past ... and smile. Ah the memories ...

I think what it may all boil down to is ... interpretation. Probably one of the most difficult things to interpret is the opening line of the rule: "Entrants may compete in a higher class as long as the car conforms to the rules for that class." ... conforms to the rules of that class ... What, exactly does that mean? (Rhetorical question, Tom ... no need to answer. :wink: ) I don't think anyone knows. I'm sure there are plenty of ... interpretations. I think its very vague. This issue may be settled when the language "conforms to the rules of that class" is clarified and perhaps made more exact. Until then, I don't see a clear answer, personally. I only see interpretation by many people based on each person's own interest, interpretation, and concept of fairness and its relationship to their own principles of competition.

Tom, you've peppered your entire dissertation with the word, or message of "exception." I find that interesting. BTW: thanks for answering my questions. They were just that ... questions. Now I'm set straight. Thanks.

I'm hoping someone outside the actual G and / or F class group steps up to help with this. Michael Dolphin has spent quite a bit of time on rules issues in the Past. So has Paul Young, Vince Knauf, and others. Hopefully, they will review this issue and provide some enlightenment. I'm confident this is just the start of one looooong discussion.

Just my thoughts. Tom, I'm sure, will disagree.

Now, where's my popcorn.... 8) Y'all have fun now, ya-hear?
Dan Chambers
"It's just a "well prepared" street car ... or a very, very well-mannered track car." :burnout:
1983 SC #91 3.6L, "Black Pearl" Livery
1987 944 (gone but not forgotten)
User avatar
Dan Chambers
Pro Racer
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby pdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:33 am

Lots of words, Tom, but good explanation.

I did run front-engine, watercooled cars for many years, including a GP/FI car.

In the Zone 8 rules, we DID divide out the 944s and 911s from being combined in G. One of the factors was perceived differences
between the cars performance, especially as it relates to track-type (short, tight AX, vs big, open track). One of the main reasons
was that there were enough cars running to justify it. Car development - especially chassis - has progressed in recent years, and
I believe the 944 platform has made slightly larger gains. Maybe that's because of the popularity of 944-Spec, or that previously
these cars simply hadn't had as much development work, or that modern chassis and suspension improvements in general seem
to benefit that platform more.

In any case, as one of the architects of the rules, and being on the rules committee now, I can say that the class progression as
spelled out in section II.F has no exception, not even implied or intended. As you modify cars to to Improved an beyond, the
different car types will be blended into the same class anyhow.

I would not support making a change to the rule excluding 911s from the G classes (or anything similar). It might make sense to
exclude SS class cars from progressing to a higher SS class. This would preserve the sense of a level playing field, which is more important in the SS classes where we don't want to discourage new participants. Still, I don't think anything is really broken here.
Paul D. Young http://www.deadpetsracing.com/
PCA Nat'l Club Race Advocate
Now: '78 911SC, '79 911SC, '04 955-S, '06 997-S, '88 924-S, '16 92A
Past: '74 914, '78 911SC, '78 928, '80 924-S, '82 931, '86 930, '03 996-4S
User avatar
pdy
Time Trialer
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:32 pm
Location: 2nd Place - Usually

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby ttweed on Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:11 pm

Dan Chambers wrote: Tom, you've peppered your entire dissertation with the word, or message of "exception." I find that interesting.
Perhaps my use of that word was misleading. The "exception" I was referring to is that while a certain Porsche model can only belong to one base class, and that class designation certainly determines how the points for modifications are assessed, etc., Sec. II.F. says that it is not mandatory that the car be entered in that particular class for a driving event--it can also be entered in a higher class, moving both vertically or horizontally in the progression chart.

Your interpretation seems to be that a car may only be entered in the class where it is specifically named, without exception, or in one of the horizontal progressions of that particular class, according to points assessed for improvements (SS--> S--> P--> I--> M--> AR1--> AR2). My interpretation is that a car may also be entered in a higher class vertically in the A-Z progression, according to the language of II.F. and the example given. The confusing point seems to be the phrase "as long as the car conforms to the rules of that class," as you (and others) pointed out, so modification of that language may be helpful in a future rule-change cycle. As I said above, I believe what was intended by that language is that the safety rules for I, M, and R classes concerning driver restraints, roll bars, open-ended steel lug nuts, fire suits, etc., be followed when moving up in class, not that the car must be one of the named models in the base class definitions of the class entered. If that were true, there could be no "vertical" movement at all between classes, and the example given in the rule of a car moving from CP to FP would make no sense whatsoever.

I have seen such "vertical" class movement happen many times in our driving events over the years, in both TT and autox events, and have been pretty surprised that everyone does not agree that it is allowed, or thinks that it is a "problem" or "broken" rule.

I don't see a clear answer, personally. I only see interpretation by many people based on each person's own interest, interpretation, and concept of fairness and its relationship to their own principles of competition.
This is not how a good ruleset should be. It should be written as clearly and unequivocally as possible, so that there is as little chance for misunderstanding as possible, though this is an ideal that is rarely reached in practice. It appears that this section could use some work.

I realize from past discussions that you believe that it would somehow be less than "sporting" for me to use this provision to run an FP 911 against GP 944s, and that is a separate issue that does indeed have personal and subjective shades and overtones. Obviously, now that you are running an IS 911 and not a GP 944, you are less invested in the issue. I have not decided to try to run it in GP yet, and certainly if Jackie and other GP competitors would resent it, I would not do it. I built this car to compete in autox on indexed time, not raw time, as it has little chance of a top-10 finish, and entering it in GP would definitely hurt my BRI placing, due to the higher index. There is little competition in FP at the moment, though, and not much more in GP, since most of the 944 drivers have gone to Spec class, so I don't know what I will do next year. Regardless, I think this discussion on the rule is necessary and helpful.

TT
Tom Tweed -- #908
SDR Tech Inspection Chair 2005-06
SDR Forum Admin 2010-present
Windblown Witness Assistant Editor 2012-present
Driving Porsches since 1964
User avatar
ttweed
Admin
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:13 am
Location: La Jolla, CA

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby ttweed on Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:12 pm

pdy wrote:Lots of words, Tom, but good explanation.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, Paul. I hope by "good explanation" that you mean that you agree with my interpretation of the rule, but I'm not entirely sure from what you wrote below:
In any case, as one of the architects of the rules, and being on the rules committee now, I can say that the class progression as
spelled out in section II.F has no exception, not even implied or intended....
[snipped]
I would not support making a change to the rule excluding 911s from the G classes (or anything similar).

I hope this means that you do not see anything in the existing provision for "competing in a higher class" contained in II.F. that would prevent an FP 911 from competing in GP against the 944s, and that you do not see any necessity for changing the rules to prevent such a thing from occurring, but that isn't entirely clear to me from reading this. Perhaps this is due to my use of the word "exception" in my previous arguments above. Can you clarify/expand on your position for me, or am I being too dense here?

Thx,
TT
Tom Tweed -- #908
SDR Tech Inspection Chair 2005-06
SDR Forum Admin 2010-present
Windblown Witness Assistant Editor 2012-present
Driving Porsches since 1964
User avatar
ttweed
Admin
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:13 am
Location: La Jolla, CA

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby Jackie C on Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:03 pm

so, what's the plan Tom? Let me know when you decide and I'll be sure to move out of your way, um, I mean, class!
Jackie Corwin
User avatar
Jackie C
Time Trialer
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Vista, CA

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby pdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:16 pm

ttweed wrote: Perhaps this is due to my use of the word "exception" in my previous arguments above. Can you clarify/expand on your position for me, or am I being too dense here?


Ummm, maybe too careful, rather than too dense. :P I think the rules and my position are quite clearly in support of you.
The only part that might not be totally clear is the statement "... as long as the car conforms to the rules for that class."
IIRC, The intention here is aimed primarily at safety equipment. It might help to elaborate on that, or remove it.

Specifically, I would not support a CHANGE to the rules that said something like "Entrants may compete in a higher class
as long as the car is the same basic model type for that class". That certainly is/was not the intention of this section.
Besides, it opens up a can of worms, with exceptions to the exception. So this section can't be valid unless it allows different
platforms going to classes with letter designators other than their listed "base class". The example given implies that as well.

Personally, I don't see what's broken. However, since we are not discussing a change in the rules or their intent, rather a
clarification of that intent through better wording, I am sure the rules team would be open to ideas on that clarifying wording.
If you have any specific suggestions, please post, or email to me or any other Zone 8 rules member.
Paul D. Young http://www.deadpetsracing.com/
PCA Nat'l Club Race Advocate
Now: '78 911SC, '79 911SC, '04 955-S, '06 997-S, '88 924-S, '16 92A
Past: '74 914, '78 911SC, '78 928, '80 924-S, '82 931, '86 930, '03 996-4S
User avatar
pdy
Time Trialer
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:32 pm
Location: 2nd Place - Usually

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby ttweed on Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:12 pm

pdy wrote: Ummm, maybe too careful, rather than too dense. :P

Thanks for that piece of diplomacy, Paul. And you are right about my "wordiness" too. As a writer, I have no qualms about using 100 words where 10 might do, especially if I think there might be a 10% chance of greater precision or clarity in expressing my thoughts. It is the editing that is the hard part for me, not the writing. :)

The only part that might not be totally clear is the statement "... as long as the car conforms to the rules for that class."
IIRC, The intention here is aimed primarily at safety equipment. It might help to elaborate on that, or remove it.
[snipped]
...since we are not discussing a change in the rules or their intent, rather a clarification of that intent through better wording, I am sure the rules team would be open to ideas on that clarifying wording. If you have any specific suggestions, please post, or email to me or any other Zone 8 rules member.

I would think that a simple addition might do it such as: "... as long as the car conforms to the additional rules regarding safety preparation and equipment that are applicable as it progresses to a higher class."

Thx,
TT
Tom Tweed -- #908
SDR Tech Inspection Chair 2005-06
SDR Forum Admin 2010-present
Windblown Witness Assistant Editor 2012-present
Driving Porsches since 1964
User avatar
ttweed
Admin
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:13 am
Location: La Jolla, CA

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby ttweed on Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:25 pm

Jackie C wrote:so, what's the plan Tom?

Well, now that I am more assured that I haven't been deluded for all these years in reading the rules, and that it is actually "legal" to move up in class as I was thinking of doing, it all depends on you, as I said. If my moving to GP would cause you to flee the class, then there would be no point in doing it. Don't you want someone to push your performance? You and Debby are the only regular entrants there now, and she could easily follow you to 944 Spec (where it appears to me the best competition in the club is happening these days, BTW) and leave the class empty. Mark only ran 3 events in GP this year and moved down to GS. He might also run the Boxster in NSS more, as he did on 10/4. Dan removed my major motivation by becoming a 911 guy before I could get the car done. I would be better off trying to talk Gary Burch into moving up to FP with me instead, since he is running times in his FS car lately that would push me to do better. I don't think he would want to give up his nice, low BRI factor in FS, though. :)

The only other possibility would be to move up to FI, even though the car is not prepared to that level, but it only has two guys running regularly there, too. I might as well just stay in FP, try to get in the top-10 on the BRI, and just compare my raw times to the other classes to see how I'm doing, like I do now. :cry:

TT
Tom Tweed -- #908
SDR Tech Inspection Chair 2005-06
SDR Forum Admin 2010-present
Windblown Witness Assistant Editor 2012-present
Driving Porsches since 1964
User avatar
ttweed
Admin
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:13 am
Location: La Jolla, CA

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby Dan Chambers on Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:48 pm

I realize from past discussions that you believe that it would somehow be less than "sporting" for me to use this provision to run an FP 911 against GP 944s, and that is a separate issue that does indeed have personal and subjective shades and overtones. Obviously, now that you are running an IS 911 and not a GP 944, you are less invested in the issue.


Well, I'm not sure that's true. I'd probably make the same beef if the Kinningers decided to run the Black Hotrod in KP or KI class. With such a light-weight 3.6l prepared car, the other K-Class cars wouldn't stand a chance. But, I'm willing to let the whole "implied personal and subjective" thing pass. As far as I'm concerned the past battles between you and I are way back there ...

The only other possibility would be to move up to FI, even though the car is not prepared to that level, but it only has two guys running regularly there, too. I might as well just stay in FP, try to get in the top-10 on the BRI, and just compare my raw times to the other classes to see how I'm doing, like I do now.


I know that feeling, Tom. when I started IS class competition there was Ron T., Morgan T. (on occasion), Don M., Paul Y., and occasionally Steve G. running in IS class. Now there's .... (sound of crickets here .... chirrrup, chirrup, chirrup,) running directly against me in IS. Too bad you can't come down to IS from IP. The times between us are close enough ( < 0.5 second ) that an old rivalry would be rekindled ... only I would be lacking the water-pump. :wink:

Glad there was some clarity from this thread, instead of mud-slinging.
Dan Chambers
"It's just a "well prepared" street car ... or a very, very well-mannered track car." :burnout:
1983 SC #91 3.6L, "Black Pearl" Livery
1987 944 (gone but not forgotten)
User avatar
Dan Chambers
Pro Racer
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby mrondeau on Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:08 pm

ttweed wrote:
Jackie C wrote:so, what's the plan Tom?

Well, now that I am more assured that I haven't been deluded for all these years in reading the rules, and that it is actually "legal" to move up in class as I was thinking of doing, it all depends on you, as I said. If my moving to GP would cause you to flee the class, then there would be no point in doing it. Don't you want someone to push your performance? You and Debby are the only regular entrants there now, and she could easily follow you to 944 Spec (where it appears to me the best competition in the club is happening these days, BTW) and leave the class empty. Mark only ran 3 events in GP this year and moved down to GS. He might also run the Boxster in NSS more, as he did on 10/4. Dan removed my major motivation by becoming a 911 guy before I could get the car done. I would be better off trying to talk Gary Burch into moving up to FP with me instead, since he is running times in his FS car lately that would push me to do better. I don't think he would want to give up his nice, low BRI factor in FS, though. :)

The only other possibility would be to move up to FI, even though the car is not prepared to that level, but it only has two guys running regularly there, too. I might as well just stay in FP, try to get in the top-10 on the BRI, and just compare my raw times to the other classes to see how I'm doing, like I do now. :cry:

TT


I actually have a couple more points to play with in GS and could stay there..., or I can leave the car as is and change tires to 140 treadware and torture Jerry B in GSS..., or I can take a bunch of weight out of the car and put Hoosiers on and run in GP..., or I can drop it down to 2550 lbs with driver and run in 944 spec supercup :shock:

The Boxster is really just a street car and I only ran it on 10/4 for the D&G BRI. I'll be running the 944 at most driving events. It's a fun car and I don't have to worry about hurting it too much. I just have to decide who I want to run against. Hmmmmm.
Mark Rondeau - Retired from club duties
1979 911SC #1 -Modified for track use.
2021 Toyota Tundra 4X4
User avatar
mrondeau
Pro Racer
 
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby Jad on Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:05 pm

Tom,

I agree with everything you said, except I do feel the 911's have a pretty significant advantage versus the 944's because the their weight advantage. Of course in every class, one car or another has an advantage and always will, so I don't think the rules need to be changed, but there was a reason the 911's and 944's were separated and I think the 911's should be in G and the 944's in F, but it was decided to make a new car/ old car split instead of basing it on speed for that class break.
Jad Duncan
997 S Cab - Sold
996 "not a cup car" Sold
Tesla Model S
Porsche Taycan
https://www.goldfishconsulting.com/
User avatar
Jad
Pro Racer
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:03 am
Location: Del Mar

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby tb911 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:42 pm

Tom:

I probably don't need to say much since Paul already chimed in, but basically your interpretation is correct. I will work on improving the language to clarify the rule (to keep Dan happy :D ). This is one of those rules that is hardly ever used, as if nobody knows about it.

Of course, all of this assumes the class hierarchy is accurate. That Q is faster than P is faster than O is faster than N is faster than M is faster than L is faster than K is faster than J etc. I'm not sure of that anymore. Are the 993s faster than Boxsters? In your classes it probably is true, I'm not sure about some of the later ones. Have to remember our rules were designed in the mid to late 80's. A whole lot of cars have been tacked on the end of the hierarchy since then, classes L - Q didn't exist! Life was simpler then and perhaps the rules don't make as much sense for the newer cars as they do for the older cars. (More on this later.)
Tom Brown
SDR President
Z8 Rules Coordinator
etc.

1979 911 SC
1996 911 Turbo
2017 Macan S
tb911
Admin
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:25 am

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby Mmagus on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:21 am

Dan Chambers wrote:
I know that feeling, Tom. when I started IS class competition there was Ron T., Morgan T. (on occasion), Don M., Paul Y., and occasionally Steve G. running in IS class. Now there's .... (sound of crickets here .... chirrrup, chirrup, chirrup,) running directly against me in IS. .


Well, I can't promise you any kind of close competition...but I am running in IS class on Sunday... :wink:
85.1 944 Sparky
'87 924S "Tuffy" #123, CC03
'81 928 "Leviathan" Gone to the great beyond.
User avatar
Mmagus
Club Racer
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: What does section II.F. mean in the Zone 8 rulebook?

Postby Dan Chambers on Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:14 am

Mmagus wrote:
Dan Chambers wrote:
I know that feeling, Tom. when I started IS class competition there was Ron T., Morgan T. (on occasion), Don M., Paul Y., and occasionally Steve G. running in IS class. Now there's .... (sound of crickets here .... chirrrup, chirrup, chirrup,) running directly against me in IS. .


Well, I can't promise you any kind of close competition...but I am running in IS class on Sunday... :wink:


Sorry I'll be absent Sunday. That would have been fun. Congratulations on your first-place ribbon in IS. 8) Oh, was that too early to do? :banghead:
Dan Chambers
"It's just a "well prepared" street car ... or a very, very well-mannered track car." :burnout:
1983 SC #91 3.6L, "Black Pearl" Livery
1987 944 (gone but not forgotten)
User avatar
Dan Chambers
Pro Racer
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: San Diego

Next

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests