Approved Rule Proposals for 2011

[gulf911]

Actually Rod I believe you would add the entire 2.7 stock motor upgrade rather than each individual item. What is this update backdate provision? Is this included in the new proposal?
I still am trying to see the benefit when we are already tweaking the new rules, when the old ones could be tweaked as well.

Also it looks like I end up in CC7 Rod, Not CC8.... Hi Martin!!

[Greg Phillips]

Would have been nice to have a vote actually. Hey, maybe we should start our own class?

But Dan... Did you forget that you have no class?

Actually that puts Dan in a class of his own.

Greg

[Cajundaddy]

Greg,

The points for displacement increase from 2.0 to 2.7 are 126. The stock '69 911T engine had smaller valves than stock 2.7 heads, so that cost me 50 points (twice the adjustment for having the benefits of a mid-engine, I might add). The '67 911S cam, which is not all that big on a 2.7, cost me another 50 points, and I no longer have the minimal 27 mm venturiis in the carbs because they were too small even for a 2.0, so that cost me another 40 points, for a total of 266 points.

Under the old rules all the 911T's from '69 to '73 were in one model range, so I only had to take the points for cam, induction and the displacement increase from a 2.4 to 2.7, and the 2.7 heads were the same as the 2.4, so no points there. What doesn't seem fair to me is that a basic lightweight '74 911 (100 pounds heavier than a '69 911T) with a 2.7 and larger brakes has the base points of 200, or only 60 more than a '69 911T. So, if you put a stock '74 911 CIS 2.7 into a 2.0 911T, you will have to add the 266 points because the displacement, induction, cams and heads are non-stock for a '69 T. By comparison, under the new points system, my friend who has a track-only '75 911S with a 2.7 engine currently in the HI class would be in CC13 with under 400 total points.

One thing I haven't checked out fully are the update/backdate provisions. It has been suggested to me that I can classify my car as a '74 911 and not have to take points for a displacement increase. I would only have to take 20 modification points for non-stock gears (901 trans), 50 for the cam and 40 for the carbs, and with the other modification points for weight, suspension changes, etc, that would put my car at 480 points, or in CC11. Under the new rules, any air-cooled 911 model from 1964-98 are considered the same model series, so maybe that is possible. If the rules allow it, I might consider my car as a long-hood short-hood car just to stay a class or two lower than Dan.

The four of us Orange Coast Region competitors in the FI Class have decided to stick together and run in the FI Class next year in the OCR driving series rather than opting to run under the new rules. Under the new rules, all four of us will end up in different competition classes because of different model years and engine sizes. Hopefully, everything will be sorted out by the time the official transition takes place in 2012.

Rod

Look it over again Rod. I think if you put in a stock 2.7L you can use this and ignore all the other engine related points:


Engine horsepower increase:

In cases where entire engines and associated engine components are replaced with a factory engine of
higher horsepower, and no modifications are made to this engine, entrants may take the following
points instead of Section III Parts E through J.

Points shall also be taken according to this formula for engines that have additional horsepower from
modifications not otherwise listed, such as the X-50 option.

Increase in horse power multiplied by 2.2 = total points.
For results that are a decimal number, round to the next highest whole number.
Example:
179 hp (911SC) to 247 hp (964 3.6L) motor = 68 hp

68 x2.2 = 149.6, rounded to 150 points.

[Dan Chambers]

FWIW,

86 944 turbo JP 18 points car, would be 580 pts in the new system, CC9

That seems about right. With my 3.6L and other "light" mod's I'm at approx. 590 points: CC9. We weren't that far off at BW, as I recall.

If the future is good to me and Santa sees I've been good, I may find myself in CC8 with some extra goodies for 2011.

Who else might be dancing in CC9 or CC8? Where's the Phillip's 911 (formerly II Class)?

[Hotrod911T]

Dave,

Thanks for taking the time to look over my long post. The problem I have with the horsepower increase provision is that it applies only to factory stock engines with no mods. My 2.7 is built with 2.7 Euro p/c on a '66 aluminum 2.0 case, not exactly a factory stock 2.7 engine, and it has carbs and not the stock CIS fuel injection.

See you Saturday and Saturday at the Pomona Fairplex AX/DE.

Rod

[Greg Phillips]

FWIW,

86 944 turbo JP 18 points car, would be 580 pts in the new system, CC9

That seems about right. With my 3.6L and other "light" mod's I'm at approx. 590 points: CC9. We weren't that far off at BW, as I recall.

If the future is good to me and Santa sees I've been good, I may find myself in CC8 with some extra goodies for 2011.

Who else might be dancing in CC9 or CC8? Where's the Phillip's 911 (formerly II Class)?

Dan, you need to read the 1st page
Still checking on the different options. With this system, changing from 275/255 to 225/245 would change from 120 points to 60 points for tire width, more than a whole class.

Greg
1982 911 SC CC8=604 points (depending on tires)
1986 928S CC9=570 points
1993 968 CC12=430 points

[martinreinhardt]

CC7 should have some good competition. Not sure where the GT3's will end up.
Could not be any worse than when you were running in K classes
Greg

Actually Rod I believe you would add the entire 2.7 stock motor upgrade rather than each individual item. What is this update backdate provision? Is this included in the new proposal?
I still am trying to see the benefit when we are already tweaking the new rules, when the old ones could be tweaked as well.

Also it looks like I end up in CC7 Rod, Not CC8.... Hi Martin!!

It could be fun after all, but not fair. I guess now, I will have to figure out how to make my car turn.

[rshon]

I think the scaling factor for HP increases due to engine swaps (2.2 times the HP increase) is out of line with the base point scaling:

If one were to take a 375 base point 2007 Cayman (with 245 HP) and do nothing more than replace the engine with a 295 HP Cayman S engine of the same year, the car would take a 110 point hit for engine swap/HP increase (50 x 2.2), making the total 485 points, even though a 2007 Cayman S (with a six-speed, wider wheels, and bigger brakes) only has 445 base points. The base Cayman would have no other advantage that justified a 40 point penalty versus the Cayman S.

It seems the HP upgrade scaling factor is unfair to those who swap an engine (at least in this example). For this example, the scaling factor should be closer to 1.4.

[jenniferreinhardt]

Also it looks like I end up in CC7 Rod, Not CC8.... Hi Martin!!

Ahem, HI DAN A! Since you live so far away, I would like to invite you over for some perro - no, I mean carnitas, tacos the night before the AXs. You can crash at our house. I know a great stand in TJ, I could pick them up for you and Martin (and anyone else for that matter).

Shoot, guess I gotta try harder, haven't grooved or improved with limited seat time.

[Cajundaddy]

I think the scaling factor for HP increases due to engine swaps (2.2 times the HP increase) is out of line with the base point scaling:

If one were to take a 375 base point 2007 Cayman (with 245 HP) and do nothing more than replace the engine with a 295 HP Cayman S engine of the same year, the car would take a 110 point hit for engine swap/HP increase (50 x 2.2), making the total 485 points, even though a 2007 Cayman S (with a six-speed, wider wheels, and bigger brakes) only has 445 base points. The base Cayman would have no other advantage that justified a 40 point penalty versus the Cayman S.

It seems the HP upgrade scaling factor is unfair to those who swap an engine (at least in this example). For this example, the scaling factor should be closer to 1.4.

With any new rule system there is bound to be some tuning involved. Just eyeballing the numbers it looks like this version is very tough on HP and tire width, and easy on soft compounds. All the more reason to run dual class this year so the rough edges can be smoothed. Power/weight ratio and grip should be 95% of this game. Everything else is just fluff IMHO. I am not really sure who cares which cams, heads, carbs, injectors, or displacement you got in there. What is the TQ/Wt? Can it be measured by a scrut in the event of a protest?

Martin, that Cay S should be well into GT3 territory on an AX course once you get her sorted. You should be able to give Dan in his old air pumper a run for his money. Don't tell me you are going to let those faded 944s drive around you in that car

[chet]

If I am reading the rules correctly, a Street Stock car could run in either the SS class or a points (CC) class. Is that correct?

[Gary Burch]

My '69 911T with a 2.7 in FI Class now computes as 636 points in CC8. If I had known that raised spindles would cost me 20 modification points, I probably would have second thoughts on that mod as well as some others that would lower me to CC9 without them. The main problem for the early 911 owners is that when you developed your car under the old rules, you probably would do things entirely different under the new rules, like build up a 2.0 instead of going to a 2.7 which cost me a total of 266 points alone.

Rod

I feel your pain Rod...this thing was pushed through like the health bill... It looks like you and I will be in the same class and I have a 3.2L and was in AM. yeah thats fair.
Some didn't like the old rules and are throwing the baby out with the bath water IMHO. Was this voted on by the powers that be without a vote from the members? Just curious.

As you will find out, this rule change along with the healthcare bill will end up being a good thing. A period of adjustment and whining always precede any kind of change. I remember when we decided to shift to online registration and charge extra for paying the day of the event. What an uproar. Now it's no big deal. Same with this. Our old classification system was a joke, you can see that by comparing old classifications to new ones. Dan, it's about competition, not trophies.

CC14, gotta love it

[jenniferreinhardt]

As you will find out, this rule change along with the healthcare bill will end up being a good thing. A period of adjustment and whining always precede any kind of change. I remember when we decided to shift to online registration and charge extra for paying the day of the event. What an uproar. Now it's no big deal. Same with this. Our old classification system was a joke, you can see that by comparing old classifications to new ones. Dan, it's about competition, not trophies. CC14, gotta love it

Gary, we all know you like to stir up the pot. But come on guys - US politics in to this thread? Let's p.o. more people!

And many do like competition AND trophies! Remember that year we received homemade pictures of ourselves with frames and a starry border mat printed on someone’s home ink jet printer. Those lame trophies were one, (yes, there were other reasons too), of the instigating contributors in our grassroots drive in convincing the Board for a Driver’s Dinner – which with a lot of whining from disgruntled club members got approved.

So, yes whining can be thought provoking and constructive.

BTW - it's good to hear the people speak. I don't want to lose any more people to other clubs. (edited to be kinder)

[gulf911]

Dan, it's about competition, not trophies.
CC14, gotta love it

So you think I drive 1 hour ( 1 way) and pay $55.00 ( not including gas) for a $.50 cone??
FYI, I could care less about the trophy or the new rules. Its the way it was mandated.
It started very recently as trying it out to see and then voted on by a board to incorporate in 2012 and now it will be used next year. All without members (ax and TT drivers, not forum participants) vote. And as you can see there are already problems with its fairness.
Cajun Daddy is 100% correct, power to weight and tires is 95% at an ax.
Just so you know, I love the competition, the camaraderie, the trash talk and trying to beat the guys in 3.6's, which I usually do...when they dont show up...

[Don Middleton]

...Who else might be dancing in CC9 or CC8? Where's the Phillip's 911 (formerly II Class)?

Hey Dan, the weight reduction points seem to be the most difficult to assess. I'm between CC9 and CC7, depending on how the scales spin up. We figured that weight reduction points would be the biggest challenge in this new approach. The current system made the weight reduction points a little easier - an educated guess was close enough. But, now, scales are in order to really know...