Final Zone 8 proposals

[gulf911]

.

- 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).

Is this for Zone 8 only or PCASDR as well? If so can somebody put the right form on the PCASDR TT webpage??

[ttweed]

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.

There are a bunch of small differences that add up to create this early/late car differential, Paul. The 2-point difference for tire size is a start, but if you want to run > than 245s, there is also a 2 point penalty for track increase when running 9" rims on an early car, since it came with 6" stock. The late Carreras had 8" rears, and can run 9" with no penalty. The Carrera brakes are a 3 point upgrade for early cars.

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).

Well, I calc that out at 12 points for the early car (.50 x 24) and 3 points for the late car (.125 x 24) by the new rules, but whatever.

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.

I would submit that the weight penalties are less significant, pointwise, and the Carrera builder would be stupid to pay 12 points for that reduction. As I remember, the ex-Kinninger AM car takes 4 points for weight, not 12, and it doesn't suffer from a few hundred more pounds. The 9 points saved in the engine swap, plus the 5 points saved in brakes and track increase, give the Carrera 14 more points to play with, spread between weight reduction, gearing change, LSD, and wide slicks, all of which will overpower the early car.

I am definitely leaning toward de-contenting my '73 911E AM car and running it in HI instead.

TT

[gulf911]

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

Tom, when you do the math you will see it is true, its less points than before when using an SC to a 3.6L implant and that is a problem since I don't think anyone here, and please correct if I am wrong, thinks by any stretch of the imagination a 3.2 can compete with a 3.6 with 315's in AM.

GSS was changed because 'supposedly' the 911 was too dominant... That difference pales in comparison to what is happening in AM.

[ttweed]

Is this for Zone 8 only or PCASDR as well? If so can somebody put the right form on the PCASDR TT webpage??

Dan-
it's spelled out in the Z8 rulebook, which is what we run by in PCA-SDR (well, except for that throw-out thing and the end-of-year points tallying) but it isn't spelled out if you are just looking at the reg form. Every rule in its entirety cannot fit on the front and back of the reg form. Look at http://www.pcasdr.org/img/2006/Rules/rules_changes.html under section III., Proposal 12 from last year. "Summary – Removes the double penalty for lowering and changing springs/torsion bars...
T. Use of non-stock springs/torsion bars and/or any suspension changes to lower a car that require machining, welding, etc. 2 points"

Note the use of "and/or."

TT

[gulf911]

Paul,
I understand how things look to you on paper, however, when we in AM are on the track with the 3.6L watching it disappear into the horizon, thats where it actually shows. And 5 seconds isn't a small matter. Its so blaringly obvious a mismatch that I can't see defending any rule set that allows such a thing. But hey, thats just me... If you guys could make a change to the tire rule that would help as well. Bigger than 275's and you take a hit on points again. Give us something, anything, to lessen the gap....Bueller?.....Bueller?......

[ttweed]

Tom, when you do the math you will see it is true, its less points than before when using an SC to a 3.6L implant and that is a problem

Not really, since it is also less points for you to go from 2.4 --> 3.2 as well. You formerly would have taken 12 points for a 33% increase and you would take 8 under the new rule. A 3.0-->3.6 swap formerly took 10 points for a 20% increase and now would take 5. A 3.2-->3.6 swap formerly took 8 points for a 12.5% increase and now would take 3. You lost 4 and they lost 5, so there is only a 1 point differential between the old and new rules. Big deal. Take off your strut brace and you're even.

There are bigger issues at work between the early/late cars (see my previous post.) 14 points is a lot more significant advantage than 1. Any change to the displacement increase rule that makes the penalty more harsh only hurts the early cars more, as they have a much bigger increase necessary than the Carrera, since they start so much lower in stock form.

TT

[pdy]

Tom:

Some folks think weight is god, others don't. I think it
depends on the specific track, but is still a significant
factor no matter what.

I can't imagine that either car in AM would not upgrade
the brakes, and take two points for track, making it
5 points in both situations.

In any case, the advantage may depend on venue, and
of course driver (there are no points for improved driver).

IMHO the cars are not way off in potential. One can always
build a 41 point car, run it in AM, and complain, but two
decently conceived AM cars should be similar in performance
whether based on a '72 or '88 911. I ran a 924 Turbo in FI
with 21 points for many years. At the big tracks I had a
decent chance, but at the autocrosses it was definitely
not as quick as the FI 911s. I had 6 points in the gearbox
just because of a lower fifth gear that I only used at
Willow. It would have been a competitive GP car, but I
made my choice and lived with it. Moving down a class
may make sense for you.

[ttweed]

Tom:

Some folks think weight is god, others don't. I think it depends on the specific track, but is still a significant factor no matter what.

Weight is definitely significant, but what I am saying is that under our rules, weight removal is penalized more heavily than HP. Which would be better for reducing lap times--a 25 HP increase or a 250lb. weight reduction?

I can't imagine that either car in AM would not upgrade the brakes, and take two points for track, making it 5 points in both situations.

Carrera brakes are entirely adequate for track work with proper cooling, pads and fluid. The same cannot be said for a '73T's brakes. An upgrade is mandatory for the early car if you want to be safe. The same is true for the track increase points. To run the 275 tires that are max. for RS or Carrera flares, a 9" rim is minimum, 10" is better. The Carrera can do this with no points, while the early car can't. Plus, I have to take 2 points for my Carrera-size anti-rollbars on the '73 while the Carrera takes none.

We won't even talk about the G-50 transmission and the 6 points it would take for the early car to go there with the late Carrera.

TT

[Dan Chambers]

Forgive the intrusion, I know I don't necessarily have the right to chime in with this class discussion. But it seems the more the AM and AR classes try to find equity in the class, the more complicated it gets, and people Seem to be reeling in the loop-holes ad-finitum to "classify" their cars to AM/AR; even though the actual vehicles themselves have disparagingly large differences among them.

After running in the Parade autocross in Portland, with their really funky (so I thought) classes, I've come to recognize the wisdom of that system. In the long run, it's far less complicated than what the AM/AR classes look like in Zone 8; and more importantly, the cars that end up running against each other are (.... dare I say it ......) very close to one another in respect to their vehicle-built abilities.

Tom's comment about de-tuning his car to run in HI underscores the complexity, vaguaries, and complications of cars that are extremely prepared in AM class and above. He's the Tech Inspector, and he sounds frustrated with the system in our rules!

Maybe Jae Lee has the right idea. Forget about the darn points. Put 200-points down on the reg. form, and DRIVE!

As for me - I'll just stay in G-class As for the AM/AR drivers: maybe another look at the National Rules could shed some light.......

Just my view.

[gulf911]

Tom:

IMHO the cars are not way off in potential. One can always
build a 41 point car, run it in AM, and complain, but two
decently conceived AM cars should be similar in performance
whether based on a '72 or '88 911. I ran a 924 Turbo in FI
with 21 points for many years. At the big tracks I had a
decent chance, but at the autocrosses it was definitely
not as quick as the FI 911s. I had 6 points in the gearbox
just because of a lower fifth gear that I only used at
Willow. It would have been a competitive GP car, but I
made my choice and lived with it. Moving down a class
may make sense for you.

Huh??? Yes, I guess you are right my car does have the potential for me to put a 3.6 in it...

Perhaps you missed Johns earlier post? He is at 54 points. He could go to a 3.4? No wait, its over 54 now..hmmm....

I also wasn't aware you can add weight to move down in class? If my car weighs 2375, can I add weight to move into FI??

Just so we are clear, are you saying you think a 73 tub with a moded 3.2L putting out say 240-250hp running 245/275's pointed out at 54 points, is similar in performance to an SC tub widebody with a moded 3.6L at 300hp-325hp+ and 275 /315's to 335's pointed out at 54 points??

[gulf911]

Tom's comment about de-tuning his car to run in HI underscores the complexity, vaguaries, and complications of cars that are extremely prepared in AM class and above. He's the Tech Inspector, and he sounds frustrated with the system in our rules!

Maybe Jae Lee has the right idea. Forget about the darn points. Put 200-points down on the reg. form, and DRIVE!

As for me - I'll just stay in G-class As for the AM/AR drivers: maybe another look at the National Rules could shed some light.......

Just my view.

If I had a 3.8L 400hp monster car also, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Forget about the points? I didn't really see that 944 sentiment when I was running a 911E in G class, and I am positive if they hadn't changed the rules I still wouldn't see it....

[Curt]

Hey guys, maybe the issue is all about the driver. So what if Tom, Dan and Mick were instructing in this club back before the turn of the century. It's just all of a sudden everyone with an early car in AM forgot how to drive. Please, that is ridiculous and insulting.

Paul, you ever been on the track with a car that is NOT in your same class and it pulls away from you in corners, under braking and on the straights? Yes? It's not too bad when you can tell yourself "that's ok, he's in a higher class". Well, that is exactly what is happening to ALL of us now and the truth of the matter is the 3.6 car is NOT in our same class performance-wise in any way except due to a total SCREW UP in the rules.

We've tolerated the screw up for two full seasons while nicely pointing out the inequities and being told something was being done about it. What other glaring issues was the Rules Committee focusing on?

And please, why are we trying to rationalize this BS. READ the Kinninger comments I quoted earlier in this thread. Do any of us in this thread (Steve G excluded) feel we have the knowledge or expertise to dispute him? We are jerking around with calculators and maybe half a clue if we are lucky. Mark said the early cars are OBSOLETE in AM. You know how many early cars Mark built into AM class cars? You know who built Rolands car and the latest 3.6 bully in the club? Hello? Knock kock knock, IS THIS THING ON?! Was that the goal, to render 5 SDR region club members cars obsolete in order to provide a new class for 1 car a year?

[Jad]

Hey guys, maybe the issue is all about the driver. So what if Tom, Dan and Mick were instructing in this club back before the turn of the century. It's just all of a sudden everyone with an early car in AM forgot how to drive. ?

Wait Curt, you may be on to something and it would also explain how YOU beat them at BW as well Now, how did you manage to beat me... oh yes, the voodoo doll. How many points for those?

[pdy]

Okay Curt, I have built a car to be competitive in a
much narrower class than AM (points spread). Before,
I did know what it was like to be the underdog, in my
924T (which I instructed in well before the turn of the
century, BTW).

One idea is to ballast the older cars up to 2770 lbs,
like a mid-80s Carrera, then shove a 3.6 (or 4.2) engine
in, and you've got the same car as the faster ones
in AM. Hey ballast is cheap, and one of the trodden
in AM said or implied that weight wasn't that big of
a deal.

Seriously, I have yet to see any proposals as to how
we might solve this'problem'. If the technical sh*t
isn't your bag, no worry, we can propose something
ourselves, but we need lots of information. I have
still yet to see ANY modification lists or point
sheets of the cars concerned. I can only guess as to
what the cars have for modifications. All I know is
Jonny has a 3.2 and 54 points (doesn't tell me much),
and former Mark and Roland (now AR1) have 3.6L engines.
That's all I know. To fix this problem, we need details
of what the oppressors and the downtrodden have in
their cars. A points sheet would be good, but a list
of all performance modifications would be better.
You seem to have a lot more knowledge of the alledged
oppressors' cars, and I would sure hope you know what
the 'older' AM cars have in them. If you can't write a
proposal, at least give us enough info that we can help!

And if any AM driver want's to illustrate first-hand,
I would be glad to swap cars with them for a run session
at WSIR next Feb.

Paul.

[ttweed]

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-

I agree completely with your interpretation of the spirit of the rules, but unfortunately, this is not what it says when interpreted literally. A clairification by the rules committe is desperately needed in this area, as it has been a thorn in the side of AM ever since I moved up to that class. That is why I submitted change #30, which I thought was perfectly clear.

The current wording of the update/backdate rule is as follows:
"In order to be eligible for this provision of the rules, the car as modified must be functionally identical (mechanically, physically and aerodynamically) with the model to which it has been updated or backdated. Under those circumstances, the car is eligible to run in the same class as the model to which it has been modified to match."

The key wording is "functionally identical...in order to be eligible." It seems obvious to me from this wording that a car which has been modified BEYOND this state of "identicalness" is no longer eligible to have "update/backdate" provisions applied. The rule can only be applied to Stock class cars, as once the car is modified beyond the stock specs, there is no way to assert that it is "functionally identical" to the other model "it has been modified to match"--thus it is ineligible for the provisions of this rule.

That is why we need to have the "virtual" or "hypothetical" update allowed, as I proposed (with thanks to Alan Jackson who suggested it in this forum during a previous rule discussion,) so that an owner can assert that his car could have been updated to another model before further modifications were made, even though it is no longer "functionally identical" to that model. It may be within the "spirit" of the rules, but it is certainly not allowed according to a strict, literal interpretation of the wording. For years now, myself and other competitors in AM with T and E model early 911s have taken more points for engine mods than those with S models, contributing further to the disparities in AM class.

Also, there is no Zone 8 rule
about VINs, nor any way to reasonably enforce it.

While there is no specific mention of VIN in the rules, how else is an owner to prove that they have correctly calculated their points for a highly modified early car? The model type is included in the VIN code, and once the car has been greatly modified, there is nothing else left to determine its original configuration. In the case of the engine swap rule, the point penalty is determined by the difference between the original stock engine and the new stock engine. How would a protest committee or a tech inspector or an owner determine an early 911's original stock HP once it has been highly modified other than by the VIN? Last year, I proposed a change to the engine swap rule that would allow all cars on the same model line in the update/backdate rule to calculate their HP change in the same way, eliminating this inequity, but it was not forwarded for acceptance either.

Perhaps it is not necessary to change the rules, if your interpretation of the update/backdate "spirit" is correct, but I think that there needs to be a formal declaration or clarification of this intent by the Rules Chair at the very least, as many of us have been functioning under a different perception for many years, and have discussed these problems many times without resolution in the past.

TT