Final Zone 8 proposals

[Red Rooster]

Welcome!!! ....all new 3.6L AM class cars!!!

Firstly, I have reviewed the original and final draft versions of the ’07 AX/TT rules and all I can say is what the title of this email says.

I know I have no room to complain because I had every opportunity to submit any rule proposal I wanted to, and did not. I thought me being still a relitively new SDR member I could leave all this rule making stuff to the seasoned vet's and I would learn from it.

Well on the heels of the lesson I learned at SM, staying quiet can and will leave one regretful for not speaking up sooner.

So if I have read and most importantly understood the new '07 finalized rule proposals, here are my favorite 3 highlights:


a.)Stock engine swap points: you now take LESS points for a larger stock engine swap than before.


b.)Engine Displacement increase: you now take LESS points for increased engine displacement using new formula


c.)Turbo-width wheels/Tires: Issue not addressed. No rule proposal submitted.

I know the rules committee worked long and hard on the entire proposal package. I did not volunteer nor did I submit any proposals and I feel weird even complaining about it, so, as the old saying goes....

"Ya get what ya settle for..."

[Jad]

Then again, the torsion bar 944 seems to beat AM soundly

Jad, did you ever beat Roland in AM last year or Erik or Mark Kinninger in AM this year? That is exactly our point! You can beat the rest of us on occassion unless the track is named Buttonwillow

We are talking about "AM" class cars like Rolands who beat you by 5 seconds at Buttonwillow in 2005 and "AM" class cars like Mark Kinningers who beat all the KP class cars by over 2 seconds at a short track like Streets of Willow in 2006.

The fact that a 911, a 968 or a 944T can win KP class on any given day is AWESOME for you guys. The FACT that a historically competitive AM class car can not TOUCH a formerly HM classed car no matter what, is what we have been bitching about for going on 3 years now.

Yes Curt, I know. Been there when GSS was being easily won by 911's. Took a few years to fix, but it did happen. In the mean time, complain nicely, help fix the problem, but you still have a very competitive fun class of AM* (this special class includes the wimpy engined old cars, a certain darth vader like machine, and othersregardless of their official class). There are no trophies, at least none worth fighting over, so go out and win within your real class and don't fret too much over how you are officially classed as it doesn't really matter, does it If I beat you, Dan and old Red, I feel I beat AM as we know you guys are the real AM class

[gulf911]

Then again, the torsion bar 944 seems to beat AM soundly,

You havent beat AM soundly ( see Curts post).
No problem there though , you are in a different class now aren't you?. While you have a weight disadvantage, your almost 100hp, torque and tire size advantage makes up for it. We have to compete with these specs , 'with similar weight as us', in the same class..

[Curt]

You know Jad, I don't care what all those other KP class drivers in the club say about you, I think you're a nice guy

[Curt]

And don't mind Dan. He's just grouchy. He has to rebuild his trans and he's not too happy about it. I don't know why. Nothing beats shelling out stupid amounts of money to run a car in a club that doesn't have a class you can be competitive in.

With those 3.6L "AM" class cars showing up, it's like Mark McGwire showing up to play wiffle ball against us on our little cul de sac. And then after two years of complaining to our moms who promised us these new rules proposals, it's like our moms said "it's ok, play nice with Mark. And Mark, if you have to, run down one of these little punk b'yatches if they get in your way."

[gulf911]

There are no trophies, at least none worth fighting over, so go out and win within your real class and don't fret too much over how you are officially classed as it doesn't really matter, does it If I beat you, Dan and old Red, I feel I beat AM as we know you guys are the real AM class

I really hate it when you make sense.... I don't care what Curt says...you are still Capt. Neptune!!

[pdy]

Hey, I am genuinely interested in this, since
we usually like to fix something that is really
broken (even if you don't submit a proposal).

What I don't understand is why the intercourse
AM people are complaining? Is there a bunch of
folks with 41 points, and one or two with 52?
Or is it drivers that haven't been sufficiently
modified to perform well? I could build a 450HP
AM car, should be good for 27s at Willow, but
I might not be able to drive that. I could
have done that last year too, or the year before,
in theory - the rules haven't changed THAT much.
If there are cars right at the bottom edge of a
class, seems there ought to be a few points that
can be removed without too much pain to classify
it lower (add 75 pounds and move to FI, e.g.).

Let's see the modification lists and point sheets
of all the parties concerned. Then, maybe if it's
really broken, we can fix it in 2008 (or later if
you prefer).

[Red Rooster]

Paul,

I can't speak for the other guyz in AM, but I am a 54 pt. AM car. I think Tom Tweeds earlier post in this thread is a real good one that deserves attention. I know I can still improve as a driver, but I am proud to say, with my current 3.2L early car I have been able to click off at least a half dozen laps or so at Big Willow at 1:30.xx ...lots of :31's too.
Maybe I'll improve more and get into the :29's some day...hope so!!

Anyway, The basic problem is that with the current rules any 911SC or '84-89 Carrera can put in a stock 964 or 993 3.6L with Turbo flares run 10" front & 14" rear tires - and be AM class legal - and then flagrently out grip any other existing AM car in the corners and massivly out accelerate you exiting that same corner and then continue to out accelerate you down the straight using the power of it's 3.6L

It's not even remotely close. Just look at the TT result of Roland's car when it was in AM last year or Mark Kinningers car at SoW this past april. Talk about trout fishing with dynamite !!!! Holy smokes !!!

I can keep up with just about any 964 out on the track....and sometimes even Jack Miller, but at 500# or so lighter than a 964 my car can keep up with it's 3.2L.

But put that 3.6L in a 911 of similar weight like a track preped SC or Carrera with much wider points-free R compound tires and the game is over. Recent TT results have prove this in every practice session as well as the actual timed runs.

I don't think it is the driver's in AM either, that is throwing out a red herring. Review the top 10 times for this years TT events, you will see 3.2L powered AM drivers in there fairly regularly.

But like I said in my earlier post, I never offered up any proposal or revision of an existing one, so I have to live with the results of that.

[Curt]

Paul,
Most of us are close to maximized points-wise in AM. The problem with the rules is that if you run 8" rims it's the same points as if you run 13" rims. Would you rather have 245 tires or 335? Same points.

Where this all went wrong was when HM was eliminated. In the past, people put 3.6L motors in early cars. This cost so many points along with other necessary AM mods, that they were limited to run 225 tires to stay in AM. This was the great equalizer. It kept 3.6L engines out of early cars because there wasn't enough points left to put big enough rubber on the cars. Anyone else remember when John Lusti showed up with an early car with a 3.6L and 225 tires? He got spanked by Dan because his car was almost undriveable with that much power and so little rubber.

Since HM is gone, the Carrera's and SC's now in AM, can put in "stock" 3.6 liter motors and put so much rubber to the ground that they are unbeatable.

As already referenced in this thread, Mark Kinninger who I'm sure we're all aware of his pedigree as a driver and Porsche mechanic (and builder of these new AM rat bastard mobiles )came on this forum and stated quite clearly, and I quote:

"You guys should have seen the writing on the wall when Roland showed up with a 80 SC running a 3.6,short gears,coil-overs,big brakes and 315 tires in your AM class.Sell those early cars to the R-Grouppe guys and build (or buy) something competative.
Mark"

Seriously, what more does the rule committee need than the above sentences by the person who stated it?

Any of you ever been on track in your car taking near maximum class points and having a car in your same class lapping 5 seconds per lap faster than you?

The Rationale listed in the new Rules proposal talks about the frustration levels of early car drivers and lopsided rules. Who the hell else does this refer to other than the AM class drivers who have been complaining about this now entering our third year? Who else is complaining about new entries to their class being able to lap 5 seconds per lap faster?

And yeah John, you didn't submit any rules proposals yourself, but were you not assured that the situation in AM was one of the major issues that would be dealt with?

By the way, I don't blame Steve for this at all. The man has a full plate and he can't figure out every possible repercussion of a rule change.

[pdy]

Johnny:

Thanks for the ideas. Regarding the T vs S issue,
cars can be up/backdated, so I don't see why you
couldn't take that approach - once you are in
modified or above, the car can be a T or an S
to start with, effectively.

How about late cars in AM vs early cars in AM?
The later cars take less points for bigger tires,
but it's 225 vs 245 to keep it at 2 points. Besides,
once you get to 255 or wider, it's all 4 points.

Later cars take less points for bigger engines,
but carry a weight penalty. Build an AM car from a '73 911T or an '85 Carrera, going to 3.6L.
The early car takes 13 points for displacement,
the Carrera only 4 (using the '07 proposed rules).
Now, weight - Suppose we want the cars to weigh
2300 lbs. The early car takes zero points, but
the later Carrera pays 12 points (it's weight
is 2770 lbs, stock). Looks like the rules are
biased to the early car (13 points vs 16).
One could argue that the Carrera builder can
opt to not pay the 12 points, keeping the weight
in the 2750lb range, and spending the 12 points
elsewhere, but that significant weight burden
is still there for braking and cornering.

So how did your car end up with so many points?
I figure 12 points for displacement, 10 for
heads and cams, 5 for fuel and distributor,
add another 12 for suspension and tires, 2 for
wing, that's only 41 points.

Whatup?

Paul.

[Curt]

Ihave a couple of questions maybe someone could verify. I just did my points again and I am only coming up with between 37-45.

- Did we abolish the points for raised spindles (any lowering by means of welding)? I don't see it on there anymore.

- Do I take points for Carrera brakes since the calipers are the same size as the original S brakes?

- Do I take points for fuel distributor? Or is my S MFI pump different than an RS MFI pump or is it the same spec and just richened up?

If I take points for all of those things I am only at 45 points. I think the weight would be free once I topped off the gas tank, put in a spare, toolkit and jack.

FI here I come

[pdy]

.

- Did we abolish the points for raised spindles (any lowering by means of welding)? I don't see it on there anymore.

- Do I take points for Carrera brakes since the calipers are the same size as the original S brakes?

Yes, spindles are free in '06.

Brakes - hmm. I think it's 3 points, just because
it's different (no, not because YOU'RE different).

[ttweed]

Yes, spindles are free in '06.

They are free if you have also upgraded torsion bars or spring rates. If you haven't, then raised spindles would still be 2 points. The T-bar/lowering by machining or welding penalties were combined in '06. It's two points for either or both now.

Carrera brakes on an early car are an upgrade not because of pad size but because the rotor size increases.

An RS MFI pump is a different Fuel distributor from an S MFI pump because the space cam is calibrated differently.

Regarding the T vs S issue,
cars can be up/backdated, so I don't see why you
couldn't take that approach - once you are in
modified or above, the car can be a T or an S
to start with, effectively.

Could you explain this viewpoint further, Paul? I have been led to believe that the update/backdate rule only applies to the Stock classes. A T that is brought up to S specs in every way (drivetrain, brakes, swaybars, tranny) may compete as an S. However, I have been told that when a car progresses beyond stock class, the update/backdate rule does not apply, and points for modifications must be calculated from the original car's configuration, according to the VIN #. This has been a sticky point in AM for years, and discussed at length on this forum and elsewhere. I have submitted two rule changes over the last two years to address this issue and neither have been accepted. For many years now, people who have transplanted a 3.2 into a T chassis have taken more points than someone who transplants into an S chassis, due to the HP difference of the two models, even though they end up with the same power/weight ratio. Why do you say it doesn't matter? It is an 8 point diference in such a case, under the current rules. Look at Proposal #30 of the AX/TT rules for 2007. This was my latest attempt to eliminate this disparity, and it was not even forwarded for approval.

TT

[ttweed]

a.)Stock engine swap points: you now take LESS points for a larger stock engine swap than before.

b.)Engine Displacement increase: you now take LESS points for increased engine displacement using new formula

JR-
This is not necessarily true. There are very little differences between the old rule and the new proposals for most small changes, but the new proposal allows for substantial increases in points for large differences in both HP and displacement, where the old rules were capped at a maximum increase of 40% displacement and 100 HP. If you increased beyound those two caps, there was no additional penalty. I think the new rule proposals are fine. The root of the problem, as I said before, is in the class structure, not the point penalties.

TT

[pdy]

Hi Tom:

If I recall, Proposal 30 wasn't forwarded because
it didn't seem quite clear enough, though we sort
of 'thought' we understood the intent. I am not
sure it is needed anyhow.

You can't put a stock 3.2L into a '72 T and claim
it's a JSS car unless you change the gear ratios
and weight (plus anything else listed) to that of
a mid-80s Carrera. That's the main intent of the
rule, but on to your case.

As the rules are now ('06 or '07 proposals), I don't
think there is anything saying you can't apply the
update/backdate before modifications. What rule
specifies that you can't claim that you made a
'72 T into an '72 S, then 'took all that Shtuff out'
and then put in a 3.2L engine? Once you converted
it into an S, that should be your baseline for
modifications. It doesn't matter if it was a
real S or an updated one. You start in FSS if
you start with a '72 T, and ISS if it was a '72S,
original or otherwise. Also, there is no Zone 8 rule
about VINs, nor any way to reasonably enforce it.

I believe that applying the update/backdate as I
have outlined is fair, is within the spirit of the
rules, and is allowed by the rules. But this is
indeed just my viewpoint - I will see what the
others on the committee have to say.

Paul.