Call for Zone 8 Rules Change Proposals for 2016

[pecivil]

I can appreciate the tire wear issue for sure, but again, the SS classes should not be controlled by tire wear IMHO. I hate to make a big issue about it, but if I run OEM stock tires and wheels, why does someone else get to change to non-stock tires and wheels that give them an advantage in SS class? The added points don't mean anything in SS. To me that just seems inherently unfair, considering the purpose of SS classes.

If you like different tires, different wheels for whatever reason, run in CC. it seems simple to me but I guess not.

[jbrennen]

I hate to make a big issue about it, but if I run OEM stock tires and wheels, why does someone else get to change to non-stock tires and wheels that give them an advantage in SS class?

Nothing wrong with that as an ideal. I suspect that in practice, it would lead to a very small and transient pool of drivers who are willing to run it like they bought it, including tires. I made it through two PCA events like that (along with one SCCA event and one BMW CCA event) and that's all you're gonna get. To do an entire season on those tires would have been out of the question.

[pecivil]

its funny, because I missed the last 2 years of autoX & TT, I have only run the 1 autoX in SS with the new car on the stocker Bridgestones......So I have yet to see the damage, but looks like I will.

I may be in your camp if after 4 events the stockers are shot! But wear ratings are only going lower as traction goes up...

[c4s4pcs]

Real life - tires are expendable, and everybody replaces them. Real life - +20 mm is fairly minor compared to known "rated" tread wear / stick variations. Real life - if a new driver (in my mind, the target of the SS class) wants to be able to afford this sport, the driver must optimize their tire characteristics such as to allow them to run a tire which provides regular street usage combined with reasonable AX life. Due the fact that all tires are not offered in all sizes, I feel that a +/- 20 mm deviation from stock size is very reasonable; and should be adopted to maintain the interest of entry level drivers as well as the group of people who seriously compete in the SS classes to show just how fast a street stock car can be.

Just my two cents...

Phil

[Karen Garcia Raines]

I believe the reasoning of the SS classes is not only to group cars from a "factory" perspective but to keep it simple for new drivers and those that don't want to become rules experts to fully squeeze the maximum advantage for the minimum number of points. As I understand it, the SS classes can cover 3 CC point ranges (per a conversation I had with Steve G.) anyway.

I agree with the +20MM on the tire rule suggestion. IMHO, this falls into the same category as certain factory performance options for SS cars and keeping the rules "simple" for SS classes. And the performance advantage is not as significant as other factory performance options for cars that allow cars to stay in SS class.

Really, isn't a factory "option" a modification if it provides for a performance advantage for a car in the same class? Starting in 2009 a LSD was an option for Caymans from the factory. This does not cause the car to move to CC nor does it cause the car to move to a different SS class. But buy the car without LSD, add an aftermarket LSD that does the exact same thing, and now you are in a CC class. Another example is the X73 suspension. And we know there are many performance factory options that continue to come out such as PDK, PTV, that have performance advantage, cannot be added in the after market, and these leave the SS cars in the same class as those without.

With that said, I don't see the big deal in letting us have some tire options since they are disposable. I am okay with limiting the tire to +20MM but not to "factory stock sizes" (due to the comments made by others). If we restrict to stock width then I will begin working next year to create rules for measuring all performance options for factory cars in SS class to truly level the SS classes....and we want to keep this simple, don't we?

Andrew Raines

[pecivil]

Andrew you bring up an interesting point. You could have identical cars, same year, one has PDK, PTV, LSD and be in the same class as the same car without those options. Add in lt wt forged Al wheels (same width as stock!) and 20MM+ rubber non stock tires, and you have a car that is clearly not equivalent to the car with none of the options, and stock wheels and tires. I would hazard a guess for the same driver, those "mods" would give you a good 0.5 to 1 second drop, maybe more. That is significant. And you make a good point about the aggregate effect of available factory options probably having a larger effect than 20MM wider tires.

I doubt there is a desire to try to add points to the SS class structure as you mention you intend to propose if the 20MM++ thing does not fly, but with the current array of performance options available from the factory, that may be the only real way to try to equalize SS cars.

[ttweed]

....with the current array of performance options available from the factory, that may be the only real way to try to equalize SS cars.

You might as well eliminate the SS classes entirely then, make everyone point out their cars and run in the CC classes. That would certainly simplify things. I know it would make Gary Burch happy.

TT

[ttweed]

Just saw the proposed added points for having PDK!! a big increase!

50 points for a PDK option is an absurd penalty, especially for an autocross where you might shift once. This highlights the shortcoming of our system where the same penalty applies for autocross or time trial equally. The GGR rules from which we borrowed many of the concepts for our last rules overhaul differentiated mod points for the two different venues (big track and parking lots). We never acknowledged or included these differences, and they are substantial for many performance improvements like aero mods, brake upgrades, etc., and now for PDK. On a big track, with 10-20 shifts a lap, maybe it could make a difference, especially for someone who is bad at shifting, but in an autocross there is no way it is worth 2 seconds a lap. And as Monte points out, in SS class the points would not matter--a manual car is going to have to run straight up against a PDK car.

TT

[pecivil]

You might as well eliminate the SS classes entirely then, make everyone point out their cars and run in the CC classes

If you look at it very hard that is the logical conclusion. If SS classes are based on horsepower to weight ratio only, and all the factory performance options are ignored, it has the potential to be unfair, in terms of the classes separating cars into equal performance groups. Perhaps more so in TT vs autoX, but do we have many people running in SS in the time trials?

How far down the rabbit hole do you go? SS classes are supposed to be simple. The idea is you drive the car you drove home from the lot, essentially. For people who don't want to mod their car, but still want to run and compete. But we can all agree, to use one example, a Cayman with PTV, LSD, and PDK and maybe X73 suspension will be inherently faster than one without, yet they would be classed together in SS.

In the June autoX, I definitely felt having pdk gave an advantage, even though there was only 1 downshift. It allowed a quick 2nd to 3rd upshift about 3/4's up the front straight where I hit the limiter, and then back down before the 1st left. Very smooth using pdk doing that. In a manual, I would have bounced off the rev limiter and not gone up, or short shifted early and probably lost time. I remember hearing more than a few cars hitting the limiter in the last 25% of that straight. Just an example of how pdk **might* change the game.

I will shut up now.

[Gary Burch]

....with the current array of performance options available from the factory, that may be the only real way to try to equalize SS cars.

You might as well eliminate the SS classes entirely then, make everyone point out their cars and run in the CC classes. That would certainly simplify things. I know it would make Gary Burch happy.

TT

thanks tom, like you told me ss is mainly for parade ax. i guess they use it because ss cars are the ones you could actually drive to a parade and not trailer it, that is newer cars.
and, as usual, you are right, it would make me happy.

[Cajundaddy]

Lots of "interesting" proposals this year and big misunderstandings about PDK, it's advantages and disadvantages. Be sure to get in your comments so the rules team has your thoughts and reasoning. Hint: If there is glaring inequity with a particular type of car or tire compound it will easily stand out in the AX and TT results at every event. One AX course or TT track does not a season make and certain cars will often favor tight technical tracks while others favor long open tracks. If it averages out over the season there is probably little need to make a rules change.

Winning a championship in PCA AX or TT is consistent with this Woody Allen quote: "80% of success is just showing up."

[rshon]

The second round of Zone 8 Rules change proposals have been documented and can be found here:

http://www.zone8.org/assets/docs/2015/Rules/RuleProposalsR2_2015.pdf

A detailed summary of the disposition of all the round 1 proposals can be found here:

http://www.zone8.org/assets/docs/2015/Rules/WhatHappened2015.pdf

Members have until October 31 to make comments on these proposals, at which time the Zone 8 Rules committee will finalize the proposal package to the Region Presidents.

Please send all comments to Rules@Zone8.org.

[sf.in.sd]

There was a lot of interesting discussion on the tire width question for street stock (DE proposal #2). I wanted to see the current proposal, but I don't understand what it says. Can someone clarify what the current proposal is for this rule?

It says: Disposition:
MODIFIED. Revised to allow +20mm tire section width over maximum stock
sizes, +14mm track width increase, but limit wheel sizes to largest stock size
with no additional allowance.

Then proposal says:
b) Aftermarket wheels, as long as there is no resulting increase
in width or track (front or rear) over the largest factory wheels
available for that model range. Section XIII Part K requires that the
tire must be covered by the fender.

specifically not allowed:
o) Installation of factory or aftermarket wheels with a
greater width or resulting in an increased track than the car was
originally equipped with from the factory (within 10mm).
p) Installation of tires with an increased width over the
largest tire available from the factory for that model when new.

What is this saying about allowable tire width? +20, +0, +10?

Thanks

[marcus981]

Shawn,

I think you need to look at the other document that Russell posted for the updated proposal wording.

The "disposition" document just added commentary to the original (v1) proposal, but the "RuleProposalR2" document has the proposed updated wording for v2.

The disposition paragraph seems to say it all though:
Revised to allow +20mm tire section width over maximum stock sizes,
+14mm track width increase,
but limit wheel sizes to largest stock size with no additional allowance.

Marcus

[sf.in.sd]

Thanks Marcus! That document was much less confusing.