Final Zone 8 proposals

[Curt]

Paul,
I realize that in this thread you are just trying to help and I appreciate that. I don't think any of us are interested in listing all our points and/or modifications right now as we are busy trying to figure out what we need to do to get our cars to FI

I know that in POC, my car is a solid V3 car and would be extremely competitive. I also know that Kinningers car he just sold would be a V2 car and would not be competitive. In PCA we're in the same class.

I wish I could get my hands on a copy of the PCA Club Race rules because I would be surprised if our current crop of AM cars would be grouped together.

Dan, Mick and I all share the same mechanic. I wish I could have him chime in on this thread. His comment when out with us at PCA events seeing Rolands car and ours in the same class, "That's retarded". Unfortunately, he can't comment in this thread because he is at Laguna Seca with Aasco Motorsports as crew chief for 5 GT Cup cars in the IMSA race.

Mick Rosen has proof-read and edited two books about the Porsche 911 and was interviewed by the Discovery Channel for a television show they are doing about the 911 as the greatest sports car of all time. He doesn't bother with message boards though. He also thinks it is ridiculous to group these cars together.

I'll tell you this, I know that I have been looking at POC schedules for next year, Alfa Club, Touring Car Club etc and there is a silly amount of track events available outside our region. I really like this club and this is just for fun, but I didn't spend $60k on my car to have the goalposts moved as soon as it was done. I can go have "fun" with any other club and not have my driving questioned because I can't keep up with a car that has no business being in our class.

Kinninger: "those old cars are obsolete in AM"

Aasco crew chief and our mechanic: "That's retarded"

POC: puts the steamroller tired, 3.6 car in V2

PCA Club Race classification: ?

[Curt]

I'm kind of getting the impression that it's being suggested we modify our cars to have RSR fenders, and way wider rims and tires and install 3.6L motors in our cars in order to have a class to be competitive in. Are there any other classes that people would need to spend an additional $15-20k in order to have a competitive class to run in?

And you'll notice that one of our AM guys is no longer posting in this thread. I think he's done with PCA SDR. Did he quit in a huff because he didn't get his way or did he patiently and nicely wait three years for the club to straighten this out?

Any Rules Committee member that was unaware of this AM complaint has not spent any time on this message board in the last three years. There is no better source for information regarding competitive driving events in the entire Zone 8 than with our members on this board.

[kary]

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?

They were focusing on Head and neck proposals....

[gulf911]

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.

Paul,
I think you may be missing something. But thats a good answer, if the rules are unfair buy a bigger motor. AM class is a 'modified' class, the 3.6's that have slipped in that class are no where near 2770lbs in weight. You ask how to fix it? Tom has submitted proposals that either have not been passed forward or as you say weren't clear? In AM I can build a 3.2 early car to the max points 54, and because of an inequity on how points are tallied for Big Tires (widebody) and displacement you can have a LIGHT 'modified' 3.6L car, including suspension gears etc. in the same class. As a start , The points stop for tires at 245's and cap at 4 points for I cars , and for F cars stop at 225's, this is rediculous. There should be additional points for widebody 13" 315 or 335's. Displacement points should be changed as well. If you want an illustration, lets you and I go out, me in my car you in yours at any track of your choosing, now try and catch me.... this would illustrate the inequity pretty closley...

[rtp356]

Any Rules Committee member that was unaware of this AM complaint has not spent any time on this message board in the last three years. There is no better source for information regarding competitive driving events in the entire Zone 8 than with our members on this board.

Or... you could have not counted on the rules committee spending the vast amount of free time they have cruising message boards and you could have posted your comments on the zone 8 rules web page designed just for that - but then that might have solved the problem and then no one would have anything to complain about.

[rtp356]

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?

They were focusing on Head and neck proposals....

Believe it or not - driving events are not the only rules that the committee has to deal with, and SDR is not the only region in the zone.

[Curt]

Or... you could have not counted on the rules committee spending the vast amount of free time they have cruising message boards and you could have posted your comments on the zone 8 rules web page designed just for that - but then that might have solved the problem and then no one would have anything to complain about.

Hey guys,
I deleted my last post because it was too harsh. I'm sure someone will quote it right after I click the Submit button and it will be back for everyone to see.

So I apologize to those who saw it and to those who didn't, it was still rated PG, just very sarcastic and immature which I'm sure you all recognize as being out of character for me.

Steve is one of the coolest people in this club and I don't want him to be annoyed that his hard work is unappreciated and Paul is just trying to iron things out too. However, there were two proposals that would have helped our cause in AM. Tom Tweeds which has been bypassed what 3 years in a row now Tom? There was also a tire proposal that would have penalized the huge tires. So we were resting assured that our issue was going to be taken care of this year.

And rtp356 has been on this very message board in the past discussing the upcoming rule changes and giving the Rules Committee's point of view, so let's take his above post for what it's worth too.

So I apologize to anyone I offended who works for no reward to try and make this club better. Instead of complaining and trying to list points differences and why the 3.6L wide bodied SC's and Carrera's have no business in AM, we are going to just go to our video cameras and show you what we are talking about. This will take a while to sift through.

[ttweed]

Hey ballast is cheap, and one of the trodden in AM said or implied that weight wasn't that big of a deal.

I guess that would be me, and while I realize it is all quite "course and car" dependent, I would just submit some of the following empirical facts:

1. With a 200-lb passenger in my car, I seem to turn laps on the average autox course about 1 second slower than without. A 220 lb. weight decrease by our rules is an 8-point penalty. With R-compound tires, I can turn a lap over 3 seconds faster in my car than I can with street tires. The R-compounds bring a max penalty of 4 points. It seems to me our penalty for weight removal is out of whack here.

2. The GT3 weighs over 3,000 lbs., yet it seems to get around an autox or roadrace course very quickly. The ex-Kinninger car weighs more than other AM cars, but given sufficient power, it doesn't seem to suffer much, even on a short, tight, autox course.

3. At the recent SCCA Solo2 National Championships in Topeka, a competitor in D-Modified named Delmar Long added 355 lbs. of ballast to his car in between heats and ran it in the next class up (E-Modified, which is identical in ruleset but allows bigger engines at a higher weight) and went a half-second faster, on the same course! This is in a car that weighs 1400 lbs.--where 355 lbs. is a 25% increase! This shows me that weight, even on a short course track, is not supreme--that there may be other factors involving tire grip from working harder and getting up to temp faster that may mitigate some of the advantages of lesser weight.

Seriously, I have yet to see any proposals as to how we might solve this'problem'.

Then you haven't been "reading between the lines" on my replies. Above and beyond any specifics of the update/backdate rule, or the rules for engine mods or tire size, my contention is that we have gone astray in the classification changes made over the last 3 years. This all started with the elimination of 911s from G class, to protect the 944s which were perceived as being dominated. The error that was made was in moving the 911s UP instead of moving the 944s DOWN. Our car classifications are structured from A to Q according to speed potential, with A being the slowest and Q the fastest. If 944s were slower than the G class 911s, they should have been moved DOWN in class, perhaps to E, since it seems a well-developed F class 911 is still capable of greater speed potential.

Once the 911s were moved up to H and I classes, the HM class was considered unnecessary and replaced with KM class, and former HM cars were consolidated into AM. This again was a mistake, as the H and J cars have greater speed potential when developed according to our rules, and the former F and G class 911s cannot compete with them on an even basis (for the reasons I cited earlier.) Additionally, there have been ZERO, not one single car, entered in the new KM class in the last 2 years.

My specific proposal would be to establish a new E class for the 944s currently in G, replace the 911s into G class, and restore the original AM and HM division, eliminating the useless KM class.

I have still yet to see ANY modification lists or point sheets of the cars concerned.

Well, here is my point sheet for my AM class 1973 911E:


I actually have 53 points rather than 52, as our reg form curiously no longer has the 1-point penalty for distributor recurving that still exists in the 2006 Zone 8 rules. I am unsure whether our form or the rules are innaccurate, as there was a proposal last year to eliminate this section, and I have not been able to determine if it was approved or not.

I have not run this car in our TT series for 2 years now, but I have given a great deal of thought as to how I might make it competitive again. My conclusions have been that I must convert it into a widebody and run 10 & 12" slicks, plus either install a 3.6 engine, or else spend about $7-10K in wringing more power out of the existing 3.4-liter motor. Needless to say, I have not gone this way yet, hoping for some revision of the rules.

Instead, I have invested my time in developing an FP car with which I could legally move up to GP and thouroughly brutalize the 944s running there, a completely spiteful move on my part, admittedly, born of my frustration with the rules-mongering that has taken place. My twisted logic was based on the hope that perhaps having an F class 911 move up in class and dominate the G-class 944s would demonstrate the need for moving the 944s down to a new E class, where they might progress to EP and AI instead of GP and FI.

TT

[ttweed]

Or... you could have not counted on the rules committee spending the vast amount of free time they have cruising message boards and you could have posted your comments on the zone 8 rules web page designed just for that - but then that might have solved the problem and then no one would have anything to complain about.

This is disingenuous at best, Richard. I have raised these issues formally through the established rules process for the last 3 years without success. Saying that the Rules committee was unaware of them because this message board was not monitored is patently false. I have had multiple, formal rule proposals aimed at rectifying some of these inequities ignored during that time, as have others. I am now of the opinion that the root classification scheme must be modified rather than the individual points modification penalties, and I will propose that change next year. I hope someone will be listening.

TT

[Curt]

Tom,
It is your proposals that I have read the last three years that have given all of us hope that this would be taken care of. I guess the whole "why didn't any of you make a formal proposal argument" is invalid. All of us read Toms proposals for AM and thought that he summed it up pretty well.

[John Straub]

They do need to fix AM. The sooner the better.

[Gary Burch]

I know this is probably irrelevant to the discourse regarding the AM fiasco but I have been fighting a similar battle in the Stock classes for the last 3 years and to this date, have been unsucessful.

I don't believe that R-compound tires should be allowed in S/S or S classes because it is contrary to ther spirit of the class. You drive the car on the track the way you drive it on the street, and R-compund tires are not street tires-just read the label. I heard on an F-1 telacast that a 10% increase in horsepower was a .2 increase in laptime and a 10% increse in tire grip is2-3seconds

With R-compound tires, I can turn a lap over 3 seconds faster in my car than I can with street tires.

And the stupid part is they still charge 1-point for any 200 DOT tire.

Not as exciting as the AM struggles but thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

[ttweed]

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.

Paul-
I would like to echo Curt's effort at civility (although I don't feel like I have to delete any of my posts to do it ) by saying that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for your deep experience with the club and your work over the years in all aspects of it--the same holds true for Steve and Richard. I appreciate your open-mindedness and willingness to look at this problem. I have no intention of offending you by singling out and questioning your remarks, and the same goes for everyone else. It is not my desire to be a "rules-lawyer," but I have come to know more about our Z8 AX/TT rules than I really care to, being driven by necessity rather than choice.

That said, I have been thru the rulebook many times and I do not see any allowance in it for an early 911 to ballast up and run as a Carrera, like you state above. Are you thinking of Club race rules? I know that POC rules contain several specific allowances for cars to do this--there are approved swaps for out-of-class cars to become 911SC or Carreras, but I would like to know what section of the PCA rules under discussion allow this? Certainly not the "Update/Backdate" provision, which only allows movement within a specified model range. An early 911 is not the same series as a Carrera, and it is not shown on the same line in the chart. Unless there is some change to that language, or a specific allowance made, I don't see how that rule could be applied in that way.

AFAIK, there is no provision for deducting points for ballast added, as Dan has pointed out. Although I proposed a change to the weight rules last year that contained one, it was not approved or even forwarded for a vote, and I was nearly laughed off this forum for even suggesting such a thing. Some people could not get their heads around the idea at all. If the early cars could gain a 10 point deduction for ballasting up 350 lbs, as is allowed in POC rules in the modifed classes, than an early car could be improved enough to equal the Carreras in AM, just as you suggest. That would go a long way towards making up the 14-point deficit the early car suffers when improved equally under our current rules, which I argued earlier, but I don't see how it is possible under the current ruleset. Could you please point me to the relevant section?

Thx,
TT

[Curt]

So far we have had 6 current AM class racers chime in on this thread. Every single one of us is not happy. Some are so NOT happy they are no longer continuing to even discuss it on this thread.

Like I have said repeatedly over the years, POC would never allow these two cars configured as they currently are to directly compete against each other. That's OK, this isn't POC, but it IS PCA! here's how PCA does it!!!!

National PCA Club Race Rules/Classes

Class GT-2R
All normally aspirated cars having engines over 3.4 liters displacement (except cars classed in GTA)
on race tires.

Class GT-2S
All normally aspirated cars having engines over 3.4 liters displacement (except cars classed in GTA)
on DOT-approved tires.

Class GT-3R
All normally aspirated cars having engines over 2.808 liters and up to 3.4 liters displacement and all turbocharged cars having engines of these displacements (after the 1.3 multiplication factor) on race tires.

Class GT-3S
All normally aspirated cars having engines over 2.808 liters and up to 3.4 liters displacement and all turbocharged cars having engines of these displacements (after the 1.3 multiplication factor) on DOT-approved tires.


Does anyone else find it interesting that these rules solve the AM situation in SDR to a T. That is EXACTLY what we are saying to allow, from a 2.7, 2.8, 2.9L car up to Toms 3.4L car. Anything above 3.4L is in a different class. Maybe we aren't in fact a bunch of whiny crybaby arseholes. Maybe there is something to our argument. I feel pretty good knowing the PCA National Club Racing is right with us on this.

[Curt]

I've decided that next year, if I can talk any of my AM brethren into returning to a SDR event that I am going to enter my car in GT-3S or perhaps more appropriately AML