Call for Zone 8 Rules Change Proposals for 2017

[JayG]

I would just up the number of points for 200TW tires. All of them are stepping up the performance envelope. BFG Rival S is as fast as RE71R, and the Kumho is very close. Next year there will be more improvements.

the things we worry about...
racing is unfair,
trying to legislate unfair into fair is ... unfair.
next time you need tires buy cheater tires, and never look back,
unless you realize the reason you're losing is not the tires afterall

all tires over 100 should be free anyway

Agreed

Now tires... I can tell you that there will always be a better tire for any given purpose as time marches on, and some may even have special tires not available to all. A tire like the RE71R is a great replacement tire for SS cars in my opinion, and Bridgestone seems to be coming out with all the sizes Porsches need. It wears well, has great grip, works well for AX and Track use, and is less expensive than the OEM tires. If you are running SS, this is the perfect tire if you can get it in a size that fits your car, and There-in lies the rub... New tires don't always (in fact, they never do) come out in tire sizes for every car in a class. If you are competitive, and enjoying running in a class with other cars that have different tire sizes, they could easily get an edge on you with each new tire innovation cycle. This is an age old problem, and as Jad said it is just a fact of life. We aren't getting paid for this, so it's OK... There is a good solution to this dilemma --> mandate Spec Tires for SS...

Spec Tires -- if you want to keep it simple and even the playing field then have everyone running the same tires. Make any changes in the Off season, so you don't rock the boat once the season is in flight. Likely the only tire that really meets all the different cars in SS size diversity requirements, provides great wear, and with good enough grip is the Michelin Pilot Super Sport.

I am sure there are better ideas, but this is all I could come up with...

Well stated Gary

Yes, it is possible that in a given class that a specific tire is not available in your ideal size at least in the short term. You still most likely have alternatives that are close in performance.

One problem in mandating specific tires in SS is cost. We should not force people, especially many just getting into the sport to have to spend extra $$ on a lower performing tire.
I would disagree that the MPSS is a good tire for AX and track. They are very good street tire, but will not take the abuse well. They also are 300TW as well

Mandating specific tires or anything else should be reserved for SPEC cars, not SS or even CC

And another rub, a PDK
We all (I think) agree that a PDK is a competitive advantage, at very least with less experienced drivers. You can't change your transmission and in the case of 99-08 986/987 even if you could physically put one in, you can't and stay in a SS class as it was not a factory option.

[jgunn]

Yes -- as I said earlier "This is an age old problem, and as Jad said it is just a fact of life. We aren't getting paid for this, so it's OK..."

But, if everyone is so concerned and want parity over cost... Spec tire is the only way (I don't personally think it is the way to go).

[JayG]

I think a lot of the hubbub about RE71 is a few people complaining that they aren't currently available in their preferred size so it unfair.

Gary put it perfectly
"trying to legislate unfair into fair is ... unfair"

[jbrennen]

It's informative that one of the best non-technical motorsports books worth reading is the book "The Unfair Advantage" by Mark Donohue:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1310 ... _Advantage

Another very good book is "Beast" by Jade Gurss:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20795161-beast


Read both books, and then come back and discuss what is "fair" in motorsports.

[SuperCobraPilot]

With the 2004 GT3 I am EXTREMELY limited in my options.

Try having a 991 GT3 with 20" rims if you want to really experience limited options in tires.

TT

OK don't expect the GT3 drovers to get much sympathy

The RE71R tires are a fine tire, but should not be given fewer points than something like the Nitto NT01.
The points system needs to have some consistency. If a modification (or tire) gives too much of an advantage, its points should be adjusted.
Don't need to be banned, just their points corrected to reflect their performance.

Greg

Not looking for sympathy... people in my class went to RE-71Rs... I went to RE-71Rs. Where is the problem? I do have an issue for your point regarding points for tires. I run SS. The tires that came on the car from the factory are Bridgestone Pole Position S-02s and are rated at 140 UTQG. If I understand your suggestion, I wouldn't be eligible to run SS.... Which while I am at it brings up another question... how BRI is figured... I'll start another thread for that. Thanks-- Owen

[kleggo]

Read both books, and then come back and discuss what is "fair" in motorsports.

pretty much anything you can get away with is "fair", ask Smokey Yunick (sp?).........................

I agree, "The Unfair Advantage" is a good read. Thanks Keith R.

[rshon]

The Zone 8 Rules committee met at the end of August and deliberated on the proposed changes and all comments submitted.

Dispositions on all the first round proposals can be found here: http://www.zone8.org/assets/docs/2016/Rules/WHTMP-2017-09-13-16.pdf

The second round of proposals, which includes those proposals which passed the review or were modified in the review can be found here: http://www.zone8.org/assets/docs/2016/Rules/RuleProposals-R2-2017-09-13-16.pdf

Comments on Round 2 proposals will be accepted until October 31, 2016. Please send all comments to ruleproposals@zone8.org

[jgunn]

Why all the rule suggenstions about Stability management? They still slow you down vs. turning them all off.

Launch control sucks too. Definitely can launch better without it.

[LUCKY DAVE]

Why all the rule suggenstions about Stability management? They still slow you down vs. turning them all off.

Launch control sucks too. Definitely can launch better without it.

Perhaps because neither of these things are true for "most" drivers?

[ttweed]

Why all the rule suggenstions about Stability management? They still slow you down vs. turning them all off.

Launch control sucks too. Definitely can launch better without it.

Perhaps because neither of these things are true for "most" drivers?

PSM absolutely does slow you down. It works by applying the brakes and/or cutting the throttle, neither of which make you faster, they make you slower. If you are inducing PSM intervention with your driving, you are not winning anything, but you might save your a$$ from a spin. My beef with this proposal is that our rules have never, ever, penalized safety equipment before, and this is not something you can "option out" of with any new Porsche. You can, however, turn it off. How can a rule apply a penalty to a driver who does not use the system? It is not possible and therefore not fair. You are guilty of having it whether you use it or not. The PSM system does not increase the speed potential of the car, and the proposal does not include any method of avoiding the penalty if the system is not used, so it cannot be enforced fairly and should be rejected.

TT

[jbrennen]

And to think, I've been running mostly with PSM on...

Running in Sport Plus mode on my 981 GTS with PTV, I've never felt a throttle cut with PSM on. (That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but if it did, I couldn't tell.) And if it applies brake at one corner of the car -- which is my understanding of how it works -- then it's probably giving me more benefit from the induced rotation and weight transfer than it's taking away due to bleeding off speed. Also, it's putting the car into a configuration that I can't get to with PSM off and just steering wheel and pedal manipulations.

I guess I still need to find the magic to flip the equation -- I'm generally between a half second to a full second slower when I turn PSM off. By my own analysis of why that is, I think it's because with PSM on, I can drive the car at 10/10ths all day long on every element of the course and just trust that the PSM will make the minor corrections needed to keep the car pointed in the right direction. With PSM off, I'm trying to ride that edge between in control and out of control. More of my limited mental faculties are devoted to riding that car control edge, which leaves less concentration for looking ahead, analyzing the line, and mentally taking notes about where I can do better on future laps.


That being said, I do recognize that I can carry more speed in a tight slalom with PSM off. But that's the only course element where I find PSM off to be noticeably beneficial.

[ EDIT -- I should say that I have in fact felt throttle cut with PSM on, but only when the car was already too far gone to save it. Those cases aren't relevant to discussing optimal lap times, for obvious reasons. ]

[marcus981]

I agree with Jack's points about some situations where individual wheel braking will allow you to exceed the performance that you can achieve without having that level of control manually. Other times individual wheel braking likely does hurt you, if it's initiated to save you from a gross error rather than a more subtle torque vectoring input.

I also agree with Tom, that anytime your throttle gets cut ("traction control"), it's done to save you, and I doubt it would make you faster in any situation once that gets triggered.

This may be a good time to revisit the Porsche Electronics summary presentation and feedback discussion that we had shortly before the last PDS in March. You may recall that in that presentation we list the stability systems that remain active, even when you disable PSM via the button. For example, individual wheel braking during acceleration (ABD) is always active.

Re: SDR Performance Driving School (PDS) PRE-MEETING

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to edit the presentation to include the feedback from Tom and Jad. I'll try to do that before the end of the year, so please let me know if anyone thinks of other changes or additions.

[jgunn]

In the Gt4 without everything turned off, the car was slower. Slaloms especially, but slower by about 1/2second to 1 second depending on the course.

In the 991 S the car was also slower in the slaloms, and slower overall with the trickery turned on.

Since all new Porsches have this stuff, shouldn't the initial classing of the car take in to account its factory delivered capabilities?

Jack -- I agree that the system performs all the various magic you describe (using brakes to help course correct, etc.). Overall it is just not a net positive IMHO. As a safety system, as an LSD substitute (PTV), as a drivers crutch, etc. they do a good job.

Today's cars are increasingly less analog. They will soon be driving themselves in sport mode as fast as the best humans:-). I agree that the systems for assistance have become very good. 98% of drivers will not lose an advantage by leaving them on, heck -- 95% may actually pick up time with them on. Still, ultimately the car is faster with everything that can be turned off, off. In the GT4, it seemed like absolutely everything could still be turned off (maybe PTV was still active, but the car has an LSD too). The PASM is still working, but that system does not seem very dynamic. Basically a couple of shock settings.

A modification that can enhance PASM is the TPC DSC control system (which I have tried). You can play around with things a lot by dynamically changing valving based on g tables and speed. The ultimate evolution will use the wheel velocity as well (supposed to be coming soon). That system is worth a little time. And deserves a few points as a modification.

Perhaps soon we will be able to flash the PSM system with a race mode that actually does increase the envelope. I am not sure the factory will ever deliver it that way, but as a modification, I can see it happening.

Driving a car as fast as possible requires a little slip angle, but not too much. It is very close to the edge, and it is very hard to do. You can be almost as fast holding back just a little and playing it safe. The car has to be dialed in, understeer eliminated, the nose planted carefully by being smooth and carrying speed into things while getting the car to rotate and a few degrees of slip angle to carry through the turn as you get on the gas through the apex. You have to do a little trail braking, in some areas, a little pitch and catch in others, and you have to know what the car will do in response to your inputs. For me, PSM adds just enough unpredictability at those limits that the car starts fighting you and you start trying to predict it and you get in a nasty distracted cycle. It just does not allow for the fastest slip angles yet. They don't want to get sued...

All of this stuff with PDKs, PSM, etc. is why I still prefer a manual (even if it's slower) with Traction Control completely off (Viper can be this analog). It is a major factor in why all the earlier Porsches keep their allure. Honestly-- I am really attracted to a long hood 2.7 with a 915 and no ABS. Those cars have such great involvement.

Anyway -- SkyNet has not taken over yet, but it won't be long. Will be interesting to see the evolution of Porsche over the next 10 years. Hopefully they stay true to their roots and keep making a highly involving car, and sell them to all who can afford (unlike 911R).

[cag4]

I am really attracted to a long hood 2.7 with a 915 and no ABS.

Heh... or a 2.8 with a 915 and nothing else

I may be slow, but I know who is driving... and its not the car holding me back!

As for the proposal, it is so hard to legislate out technical performance enhancements -- at least for features and systems that are offered from the factory. I think, as JGW and Jack implied, the electronic systems are great, up to a point. At a certain level, they probably stop helping and start hindering, or at least get in the way. But that's up to each driver and the situation. I think the key is just to properly classify the cars, as if all the systems are turned on and active for each run, i.e. the highest level of development of the car as it came from the factory, then drivers can chose to adjust them as they deem fit, up to and including turning them off, or not using them (launch control).

[rshon]

The second round of proposals has been updated with comments receive to date, and can be found here:

http://www.zone8.org/assets/docs/2016/Rules/RuleProposals-R2-2017-09-26-16.pdf

Comments on Round 2 proposals will be accepted until October 31, 2016. Please send all comments to ruleproposals@zone8.org