Zone 8 Rules for 2012

[Jad]

I run against cars with slicks 90% of the time, and virtually always win....

Thats only because I dont have a koni challenge car...

Or slicks, or talent

But you do well in the humor class!

[Dan Chambers]

I agree with Jad.
The new system looks ok. We need to just give it a chance and see what happens.

+1

... skill is more important.

Absolutely! Better skills are worth much more than better tools in unskilled hands. More importantly for big track events: better skills not only mean faster driving, but safer drivers. If people poured as much $$ into driving schools and skills improvement as they pour into car improvement .... wait: who am I to talk!?!

With this new system, at least for now, that challenge has gone away. We don't even know what the classes will look like and any improvements to the car have been put on hold.

Yeah! Saving money ... finally.

At this point I'm just building the car the way I want and run it, have fun with it and not worrying about where it classes.

Yeah, good idea. I should try that.

See you all at Willow Springs...gunning for top ten!

Go Mike!

[gulf911]

I run against cars with slicks 90% of the time, and virtually always win....

Thats only because I dont have a koni challenge car...

Or slicks, or talent

But you do well in the humor class!

Rat bastage...

[Mmagus]

Buttonwillow - Clockwise/Star Mazda[/u]
GS 2:25.72
GSS 2:24.84 (note the SS class is actually faster in this example!)

TT

Tuffy had a very good weekend and let me ride along! But with instructors like Paul, Mark R., Jackie and Jad how could it be anything BUT a good weekend?

[mrondeau]

Under my humble quick fix, the 80 point spread between 200tw and 30tw tires would not change. We are in agreement over that spread. What would change is the 40 pt spread between 140tw and 30tw which the 2012 revised proposal suggests could share the same class. No one really believes the performance envelope between 140tw and 30tw tires is remotely similar. They should not share the same class. The best 140tw tires are a bit faster than the best 200tw (20pts). The best 100tw (RA1s) are a bit faster than 140tw (40pts). The best 30-40tw (R6/A6/V710) are significantly faster than the previous choices(80pts). Racing slicks are significantly faster than R6/V710 (130pts). The historical TT track records for WSIR, Streets, Buttonwillow between SS and S classes bears this out quite clearly over the years. The difference in times by top drivers is primarily soft compound tires. In nearly every case the spread is 5 seconds plus.

Keep in mind that the stickier tires do much better when they are used in conjunction with other modifications. Most of them require more camber and stiffer suspension than you are going to achieve in a stock car. If everything else is the same and two cars using tires that have a 40 pt spread are in the same class, then one driver is optimized for his class and the other isn't. The point system has always been about using the points as you see fit. Some like to take out more weight, some believe in the stickiest tires and some use them in a combination that they feel will optimize them for a class. You have a choice as to which class you'll be in.

Try to use the track records as a guideline at best. The GP track record at WSIR stood for about 4-5 years before I reset it last year in a 10 point car. I still had 10 points to play with at that time. That record was a combination of fresh tires that were 20 mm wider than I had run before, perfect weather conditions and incredible competition between Jackie and I pushing each other to new heights. Sometimes the stars align and everything works.

I have no idea where my car will class next year and I don't care. I'll just drive it. If I get beat up by other cars, I'll optimize mine for that class or figure out how to optimize it for another. There are some tracks where I'll always be at a disadvantage (Fontana!) and others where I should have a sporting chance no matter who I'm running against (Chuckwalla). Same thing with AX tracks. Some are great for 944's, others aren't. I like the idea of leveling the playing field and seeing who blinks first.

See you all at the track.

[ttweed]

in conjunction with Proposal 10, if applicable

Sorry if this wasn't clear. The intention is that if you change both weight and horsepower, you have to re-calculate using both your new horsepower and your new weight. No double penalizing was intended to be implied

Does this mean, then, that if you have both increased HP and decreased weight, you make one single calculation using the modified weight and HP values in the formula and calculate a single penalty for both weight and HP change together by subtracting the new point total from your base class points? Or separate calculations for each, resulting in two penalties, one for weight and one for HP? The wording is certainly not clear, especially considering that we (as owners) have no access to the "special" tweaking and adjustments and rounding that is taking place with the published base class figures. Will we be declaring our formula values on our new tech sheets at each event, or having them published on a common database like GGR for all to see? Without this kind of transparency and guidance, how will we know if we make a mistake or are overlooking some component of the calculation before someone protests (or alternately, to approach a competitor about the accuracy of their calculations before making a protest)? This may seem like a good idea on the surface, but I see many problems and great complexity with its fair and accurate implementation, I'm afraid. It is far too easy to play fast and loose with dyno numbers, especially if one has an adjustable engine management system, or a "friendly" dyno operator with a poorly calibrated machine or bad practices for measurements.

Additional direction/procedures on how an owner is to establish HP and weight figures officially seems to me to be absolutely necessary wording for such a sweeping and complex rule change. POC requires a certified dyno sheet averaging 3 runs for their GT classes. What are our Z8 procedures? I see no guidance whatsoever for owners to establish these numbers fairly or objectively in the current wording. The same could be said for weight. What is an acceptable method/tolerance for weight measurements? A certified weight slip from a DOT station, or perhaps a signed statement by one of the approved tech shops that the car has been weighed on their digital scales?

I encourage everyone to think about the nuances/complexities of this new proposed approach for calculating HP/weight modification penalties and offer their suggestions as to how they think it can be accomplished/implemented fairly and enforced even-handedly. I don't see that we have nearly enough detail in the published proposal to come close to doing that. We have until Oct. 23rd to comment.

TT

[Otto]

Tom Tweed wrote:

Does this mean, then, that if you have both increased HP and decreased weight, you make one single calculation using the modified weight and HP values in the formula and calculate a single penalty for both weight and HP change together by subtracting the new point total from your base class points? Or separate calculations for each, resulting in two penalties, one for weight and one for HP? The wording is certainly not clear, especially considering that we (as owners) have no access to the "special" tweaking and adjustments and rounding that is taking place with the published base class figures. Will we be declaring our formula values on our new tech sheets at each event, or having them published on a common database like GGR for all to see? Without this kind of transparency and guidance, how will we know if we make a mistake or are overlooking some component of the calculation before someone protests (or alternately, to approach a competitor about the accuracy of their calculations before making a protest)? This may seem like a good idea on the surface, but I see many problems and great complexity with its fair and accurate implementation, I'm afraid. It is far too easy to play fast and loose with dyno numbers, especially if one has an adjustable engine management system, or a "friendly" dyno operator with a poorly calibrated machine or bad practices for measurements.

Additional direction/procedures on how an owner is to establish HP and weight figures officially seems to me to be absolutely necessary wording for such a sweeping and complex rule change. POC requires a certified dyno sheet averaging 3 runs for their GT classes. What are our Z8 procedures? I see no guidance whatsoever for owners to establish these numbers fairly or objectively in the current wording. The same could be said for weight. What is an acceptable method/tolerance for weight measurements? A certified weight slip from a DOT station, or perhaps a signed statement by one of the approved tech shops that the car has been weighed on their digital scales?

I encourage everyone to think about the nuances/complexities of this new proposed approach for calculating HP/weight modification penalties and offer their suggestions as to how they think it can be accomplished/implemented fairly and enforced even-handedly. I don't see that we have nearly enough detail in the published proposal to come close to doing that. We have until Oct. 23rd to comment.

Fully agree with your comments Tom. We need clarity and examples in the wording of the new Rules and also a way to monitor compliance. At the very least the Tech Sheet we all fill out for every event should clearly show what modifications each of us is using and corresponding point count, including where applicable actual dyno HP and actual racing weight following rules definitions. Further, these Tech Sheets should be available for all competitors to examine at the corresponding event. This last step would help prevent errors in the interpretation of the rules and also discourage dishonest behavior even though the whole process would still largely rely on the honor system.

[Mark Garriott]

Has self-policing of weight, horsepower and other points been sufficient until now? We allowed weight reduction under the old rules, and allow weight reduction under the new rules. Why does the change of weight points formula bring weight measurement and enforcement -- or lack thereof -- into question?

[tb911]

Does this mean, then, that if you have both increased HP and decreased weight, you make one single calculation using the modified weight and HP values in the formula and calculate a single penalty for both weight and HP change together by subtracting the new point total from your base class points? Or separate calculations for each, resulting in two penalties, one for weight and one for HP? The wording is certainly not clear, especially considering that we (as owners) have no access to the "special" tweaking and adjustments and rounding that is taking place with the published base class figures. Will we be declaring our formula values on our new tech sheets at each event, or having them published on a common database like GGR for all to see?

1) Single calculation -- no double penalties
2) The special tweeking will be published (unlike in GGR)
3) There will be a web site to calculate class (along the lines of what GGR has)

[ttweed]

Has self-policing of weight, horsepower and other points been sufficient until now?

Yes it has, but we have never before allowed HP to be measured for purposes of calculating penalties, we have only used published figures for HP on stock engines. The addition of dyno testing as a basis for determining mod points adds a whole 'nother dimension to the process, and one that can easily be "gamed" without sufficient guidelines for measurement.

We allowed weight reduction under the old rules, and allow weight reduction under the new rules. Why does the change of weight points formula bring weight measurement and enforcement -- or lack thereof -- into question?

I am fine with the weight part--I even stated "...could be said for weight" above, not "should be," indicating that it might not be necessary, but was something to consider. But because the new calculation of weight penalties brings measured HP into the equation, I think it is mandatory to specify how HP is to be measured. Is one run on a Mustang dyno sufficient to satisfy this? It is well known that Mustangs register about a 10% lower HP reading than a Dynojet. POC GT classification rules contain the following wording: "If HP was measured using a Mustang Dyno, multiply Measured HP by 1.1"--are we going to just ignore this discrepancy? How about turbo cars with cockpit-adjustable boost levels? With no guidelines, someone can measure HP at the lowest boost setting, use this number for all calculations, then dial it up in competition. Are we willing to allow this in the name of "self-policing" and owner-responsibility? There are just too many variables in dyno measurement techniques and equipment to not spell out acceptable guidelines for measurement in the rules, IMHO. The ideal situation, of course, would be to have all cars measured on the same dyno, by the same operator, on the same day, under equal temperature, barometric pressure, and gearing/tie-down conditions. Lacking that, we are opening a whole new can of worms to leave the rule wide open regarding interpretation and procedures.

TT